On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 21:15 +0000, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Is this expected?
>
> $ ls -l /data/sw/svn/dombroski/supergran_paper/db/txn-current-lock
> -rw-rwSr--. 1 dombroski superg 0 Aug 30 16:27 txn-current-lock
>
> $ id
> uid=6412(aaronb) gid=1001(cora) groups=1001(cora),1041(superg)
> context=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
>
> open("/data/sw/svn/dombroski/supergran_paper/db/txn-current-lock", O_RDWR) = 3
> fcntl64(3, F_GETLK, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0,
> pid=10771680}) = -1 ENOLCK (No locks available)
>
> I guess I could somewhat understand it, though the fcntl64() call succeeds on
> the server (CentOS 5.5).
It is quite conceivable that your CentOS 5.5 NFS server lacks the proper
support for mandatory posix locking. We only test regularly with
advisory locks.
Cheers
Trond
--
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
