Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753612Ab3JLU4Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:56:24 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:63446 "EHLO mail-lb0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752732Ab3JLU4X convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:56:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20131011204244.72c2d672@corrin.poochiereds.net> References: <1381494322-2426-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20131011200756.GB22160@fieldses.org> <20131011192118.483e436f@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20131011234923.GD8688@samba2> <20131011204244.72c2d672@corrin.poochiereds.net> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:56:21 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks From: Scott Lovenberg To: Jeff Layton Cc: Jeremy Allison , Andreas Dilger , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Devel" , Ganesha NFS List , "samba-technical@lists.samba.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1885 Lines: 45 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:18:58 -0400 > Scott Lovenberg wrote: > >> >> On Oct 11, 2013, at 19:49, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:36:43 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: >> >>> >> >>> At this point, my main questions are: >> >>> >> >>> 1) does this look useful, particularly for fileserver implementors? >> > >> > Yes from the Samba perspective. We'll have to keep the old >> > code around for compatibility with non-Linux OS'es, but this >> > will allow Linux Samba to short-circuit a bunch of logic >> > we have to get around the insane POSIX locking semantics >> > on close. >> > >> > Jeremy. >> >> From the peanut gallery, IIRC from college a few years back, wasn't the POSIX file locking stuff passed by all parties because they intended to do their own thing regardless of the standard? The reason that all locks are blown on a release is mostly because there were already implementations and no one wanted to push the issue, or am I misunderstanding/forgetting the history of file locks in POSIX? > > This blog post of Jeremy's explains some of the history: > > http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2.html > > See the section entitled "First Implementation Past the Post". > > -- > Jeff Layton Thanks, Jeff. That was actually the exact article I was referencing but forgetting the details of. Jeremy, thanks for writing that up so many years ago (I used to eat that stuff up in college). -- Peace and Blessings, -Scott. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/