On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:31:25AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > So, I think the above semantics are pretty clear, but now that I've had > a go at sitting down to document this stuff for the POSIX spec and > manpages, it's clear how convoluted the text in there is becoming. > > That makes me wonder...would we be better off with a new set of cmd > values here instead of new l_type values? IOW, we could add new: > > F_GETLKP > F_SETLKP > F_SETLKPW That seems a tad cleaner to me indeed. > ...and then just reuse the same F_RDLCK/F_WRLCK/F_UNLCK values? With > that too, we could create a new equivalent to struct flock that has > fixed length types instead of dealing with the off_t mess. For the Posix interface you'd need an off_t as that's what the whole API uses for file offsets. We could make sure to always use a off64_t for the kernel interface though. What is the API you propose to posix? An new posix_lockf? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
