Hi Trond,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 02:01:21PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 12:28 -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > @@ -58,12 +59,17 @@ xflock(char *fname, char *type)
> > struct flock fl = { readonly? F_RDLCK : F_WRLCK, SEEK_SET, 0, 0, 0 };
> > int fd;
> >
> > - if (readonly)
> > - fd = open(fname, O_RDONLY);
> > - else
> > - fd = open(fname, (O_RDWR|O_CREAT), mode);
> > +again:
> > + fd = open(fname, readonly ? O_RDONLY : (O_RDWR|O_CREAT), 0600);
> > + if (fd < 0 && readonly && errno == ENOENT) {
> > + /* create a new lockfile */
> > + fd = open(fname, O_RDONLY|O_CREAT, 0600);
>
> I don't see how you expect to get EEXIST with a non-exclusive create.
>
> Why do you need a second call to open() in the first place? How is this
> better than just doing
>
> if (readonly)
> fd = open(fname, O_RDONLY|O_CREAT, 0600);
> else
> fd = open(fname, O_RDWR|O_CREAT, 0600);
>
> ...or, since these are now all private lockfiles, and so we shouldn't
> need to care much about read-only vs read-write
My O_RDONLY|O_CREAT open was failing with EACCES because of a problem
somewhere between my chair and keyboard. Compounding that, I mistakenly
jumped to the conclusion that the errno was EEXIST. ;(
I'll give it another try.
-Ben
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
