From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:08:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:07:57 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:18958 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:07:45 -0400 Subject: Re: /dev/nvram driver To: thockin@sun.com (Tim Hockin) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:07:10 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel Mailing List) In-Reply-To: <3B339380.C0D973CB@sun.com> from "Tim Hockin" at Jun 22, 2001 11:50:40 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Currently it tracks O_EXCL on open() and sets a flag, whereby no other > open() calls can succeed. Is this functionality really needed? Perhaps it > should just be a reader/writer model : n readers or 1 writer. In that > case, should open() block on a writer, or return -EBUSY? Several tools expect that mode of behaviour so that they can atomically recompute the checksum when writing low bytes of the CMOS