Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751182AbVIDHZn (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2005 03:25:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751181AbVIDHZn (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2005 03:25:43 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:41901 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751142AbVIDHZm (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2005 03:25:42 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 00:23:43 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Mark Fasheh Cc: 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: <20050904002343.079daa85.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050904061045.GI21228@ca-server1.us.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> <20050904061045.GI21228@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1327 Lines: 26 Mark Fasheh wrote: > > 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. The whole idea of reinterpreting file operations to mean something utterly different just seems inappropriate to me. You get a lot of goodies when using a filesystem - the ability for unrelated processes to look things up, resource release on exit(), etc. If those features are valuable in the ocfs2 context then fine. But I'd have thought that it would be saner and more extensible to add new syscalls (perhaps taking fd's) rather than overloading the open() mode in this manner. - 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/