Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:10:45 -0700
From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>, 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: <20050904061045.GI21228@ca-server1.us.oracle.com>
Reply-To: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <20050903183241.1acca6c9.akpm@osdl.org> <20050904030640.GL8684@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <200509040022.37102.phillips@istop.com> <20050903214653.1b8a8cb7.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050903214653.1b8a8cb7.akpm@osdl.org>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 860
Lines: 20

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -> trylock
is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that -
nobody over here cares what it's called.
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh
Senior Software Developer, Oracle
mark.fasheh@oracle.com

-
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/