On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:45:00AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:00:46AM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:13:39 -0800 > > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:08 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree that it's weird, but I think it's what we're stuck with. > > > > > > And if by "weird" you mean "flock is really not a well-defined or sane > > > interface", I'll agree with you. > > > > > > That said, I'm not at all sure about the "we're stuck with it". We can > > > improve the semantics without anybody noticing, because it's not like > > > anybody could *depend* on the weaker semantics - they needed > > > particular races and timings to hit anyway. > > > > The BSD implementation does not documented such a race, or indeed appear > > to have one. That implies that nothing using flock should have this > > problem. > > Which race are you talking about exactly, and what evidence are you > working from? To clarify: I previously conflated two issues: - the temporary drop of the spinlock in flock_lock_file(). Agreed that that's pointless, and has been fixed. - non-atomic flock upgrades: that's definitely documented behavior on BSD. --b. -- 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
