Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:46:53 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>
Cc: Joel.Becker@oracle.com, linux-cluster@redhat.com, wim.coekaerts@oracle.com,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining
Message-Id: <20050903214653.1b8a8cb7.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <200509040022.37102.phillips@istop.com>
References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com>
	<20050903183241.1acca6c9.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20050904030640.GL8684@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>
	<200509040022.37102.phillips@istop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 955
Lines: 22

Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com> wrote:
>
> The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright clever.  

Actually I think it's rather sick.  Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding?  Spare
me.  O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to
acquire a clustered filesystem lock".  Not even close.

It would be much better to do something which explicitly and directly
expresses what you're trying to do rather than this strange "lets do this
because the names sound the same" thing.

What happens when we want to add some new primitive which has no posix-file
analog?

Waaaay too cute.  Oh well, whatever.
-
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/