On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 21:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Michael Thayer wrote: > > Looks reasonable for our purposes. One question though - you mention > > that "The patch does not guarantee exclusive access to these devices; it > > is still possible for more than one program to open the device file > > concurrently". Is there a specific reason for this, or would it be > > something that could still be changed, or perhaps added as an option? > > This was the subject of a discussion on LKML back at the time the patch > was being written. You might be able to find it in the archives. The > overall conclusion was that there already are mechanisms for this (like > O_EXCL) and the kernel doesn't need to get involved any further. Did you mean http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/9/202 ? I may have misunderstood something here (if so, my apologies), but I thought that use of O_EXCL for exclusive access to devices was a convention used by certain drivers (like the SCSI generic code) but not actually enforced by the generic kernel code. Or did you add support of that flag somewhere I missed? Regards, Michael -- Sun Microsystems GmbH Michael Thayer Werkstrasse 24 VirtualBox engineer 71384 Weinstadt, Germany mailto:michael.thayer@xxxxxxx Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
