Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261786AbTEDViT (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 17:38:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261797AbTEDViT (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 17:38:19 -0400 Received: from iole.cs.brandeis.edu ([129.64.3.240]:1678 "EHLO iole.cs.brandeis.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261786AbTEDViS (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 17:38:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 17:50:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Kruk To: David Schwartz cc: Subject: RE: fcntl file locking and pthreads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1075 Lines: 21 > > Two reference platforms for > > threads are Solaris and Windows. I don't know how Solaris handles this, > > but on Windows file locks are per thread, not per process. > > Surely your argument isn't that UNIX should do things a certain way because > that's how Windows does it? We can talk about two things, how things are and > how they should be. This discussion seemed to be about how things should be. I mentioned Windows because it happens to have a very mature threading implementation and I don't see why Unix can't look at something from Windows as a reference. Anyway, I understand your argument about thread vs processes resources. I also checked that it works the same way on Solaris (which of course is a better reference point for Linux), so I agree that fcntl behavior is ok. Thanks for your explanation! - 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/