mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt)
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, dalias@libc.org,
	mtk.manpages@gmail.com, samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
	nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, carlos@redhat.com,
	metze@samba.org, hch@infradead.org, bharrosh@panasas.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][glibc PATCH] fcntl-linux.h: add new definitions and manual updates for open file description locks
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:00:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1Wd2Os-00061e-GU@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140423112843.77889d16@tlielax.poochiereds.net> (message from Jeff Layton on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:28:43 -0400)

   > Likewise.  You infact write that it does get the lock information
   > later in the document wrt. F_OFD_GETLK.

   Sorry, I disagree here...GETLK is really a misnomer, IMO. TESTLK
   would have been a better name.

   GETLK are used is to "get the first lock".

   It's a way to test whether a particular lock can be applied, and to
   return information about a conflicting lock if it can't. If, for
   instance there is no conflicting lock, then you don't "get" any
   lock information back (l_type just gets reset to F_UNLCK).

While I kinda see your point, it isn't what GETLK does; it really does
get you information about the first lock -- you're not testing
anything.  It is also the terminology used in the POSIX standard.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-23 19:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-23 11:39 Jeff Layton
2014-04-23 12:37 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-04-23 15:09 ` Alfred M. Szmidt
2014-04-23 15:28   ` Jeff Layton
2014-04-23 19:00     ` Alfred M. Szmidt [this message]
2014-04-23 19:13       ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-04-23 19:23       ` Jeff Layton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=E1Wd2Os-00061e-GU@fencepost.gnu.org \
    --to=ams@gnu.org \
    --cc=bharrosh@panasas.com \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=dalias@libc.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=metze@samba.org \
    --cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=samba-technical@lists.samba.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®