Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933747AbaD2LP7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:15:59 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]:47105 "EHLO mail-qa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933004AbaD2LP5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:15:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20140429071153.176c7404@tlielax.poochiereds.net> References: <535F651E.6090204@gmail.com> <535F670B.4060704@gmail.com> <20140429071153.176c7404@tlielax.poochiereds.net> From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:15:37 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: OFD ("file private") locks and NFS To: Jeff Layton Cc: Ganesha NFS List , lkml , Linux-Fsdevel , Trond Myklebust , "J. Bruce Fields" , Neil Brown , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-nfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jeff, On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:47:07 +0200 > "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" wrote: > >> [CC+= linux-nfs@] >> >> On 04/29/2014 10:38 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> > Hi Jeff, >> > >> > I've been looking a bit at the fcntl() documentation of traditional >> > (F_SETLK) record locking, and a question just jumped out at me. Is >> > it worth considering some future-proofing in the design of OFD locks >> > ("open file description locks", formerly known as "file-private locks")? >> > >> > What I am thinking of here is that on some systems, the traditional >> > 'struct flock' has a nonstandard field, l_sysid, that is used on F_GETLK >> > to identify the remote system on which a lock is held. Should the design >> > of OFD locks allow for such a field (now, or in the future), which might >> > be useful in the context of locking on network file systems such as NFS. >> > >> > Put more simply, should the new OFD locking system be using a new >> > structure for describing locks, rather than the traditional 'struct >> > flock'? Defining a new structure, might be useful to allow for >> > future extensions to the API. >> >> Just add one further detail here. What I'm thinking is, maybe instead there >> should be something like: >> >> struct flockx { >> int flags; >> /* Other fields like 'struct flock' */ >> char reserved[32]; /* Or some suitable value */ >> } >> >> That flags field might always be zero for now, but in the future it >> could be used on the setlk and getlk operations to indicate the presence >> of additional fields in the structure. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael >> > > I considered that early on when I did this, but I don't think it's > really helpful. I'm just not a fan of padding out structs when it's not > clear what would eventually go in there. Okay. > The problem is that once actually go to try to convert those from > "reserved" to something usable, it becomes a nightmare for userland to > figure that out. How do I know whether my kernel supports the stuff I > put in those fields or will just ignore them? (That was my purpose with the "flags" field.) > If we really find later that we need to do something like this, I think > we'd be better off adding a new set of cmd values along with the > "extended" struct, or possibly a new syscall. Some of the samba folks > were interested in an async locking mechanism too, so something like > that could be added in conjunction with such an interface. Sounds reasonable. I just thought it worth checking. Thanks for the quick response. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- 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/