To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no
CC: akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-reply-to: <1143830693.8085.19.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (message from Trond
	Myklebust on Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:44:53 -0500)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock
	operations
References: <E1FPNOD-0005Tg-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
	 <E1FPNSB-0005VK-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
	 <1143829641.8085.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1143830693.8085.19.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Message-Id: <E1FPPKx-0005nC-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:31:11 +0200
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 645
Lines: 16

> However you are also changing the behaviour of F_SETLK for the case
> where the user is trying to up/downgrade a set of existing READ/WRITE
> locks. Again you may end up with a situation where some of the existing
> locks get up/downgraded, and yet the lock request fails.

Can you please point out the exact case when this happens?

I've carefully reviewd the code, and found none.

Thanks,
Miklos
-
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/