Re: [PATCH] locks: Ability to test for flock presence on fd

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:07:14PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> > Would it make sense to return the lock type held instead, so you could
> > do one flock(fd, LOCK_TEST) instead of flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_SH) and
> > flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_EX) ?
> 
> Well, in our case we parse /proc/locks anyway to see what
> files at least to test for being locked. But what you propose
> looks even better. I'll look what can be done here.

Actually I think I prefer your version.  It seems cleaner to define
LOCK_TEST as returning the same result as you'd get if you actually
tried the lock, just without applying the lock.  It avoids having a
different return-value convention for this one command.  It might avoid
some ambiguity in cases where the flock might be denied for reasons
other than a conflicting flock (e.g. on NFS where flocks and fcntl locks
conflict).  It's closer to what GETLK does in the fcntl case.

--b.
--
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/