Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lockoperations

[Miklos Szeredi]

> > In the first case no new locks are needed.  In the second, no locks
> > are modified prior to the check.
> 
> Consider something like
> 
> fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100)
> fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100)
> fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100)

Huh?  What is the type of lock in each case.

But anyway your example is no good.  If the new lock completely covers
the previous one, then the old lock will simply be adjusted and no new
lock is inserted.

Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/