On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 05:37:21 -0800 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Ok. > What is the API you propose to posix? An new posix_lockf? > I haven't proposed anything concrete to POSIX just yet. I'm trying to get the Linux patches done and then I'll do that. I don't think we want a new syscall when fcntl() will work. If we use new cmd values however, then we don't necessarily need to use struct flock/flock64. I think the question is -- should we stick with struct flock/flock64, or would we be better served with something new for this? Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
