Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:45:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:45:37 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:44550 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:45:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:45:36 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Alan Cox Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , Marcelo Tosatti , Saurabh Desai , Stephen Rothwell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/locks.c: Fix posix locking for threaded tasks Message-ID: <20020612124536.T27449@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20020610034843.W27186@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:40:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > SUS v3 does not offer any enlightenment. But it seems reasonable that > > processes which share a files_struct should share locks. After all, > > if one process closes the fd, they'll remove locks belonging to the > > other process. > > > > Here's a patch generated against 2.4; it also applies to 2.5. > > Please apply. > > This seems horribly inappropriate for 2.4 as it may break apps I have no problem with withdrawing the request for 2.4. It does mean that it's almost impossible to write an M:N threading library implementation. This doesn't concern me too much; I just want you to be aware this is the tradeoff you're making. I would still like to see it in 2.5. -- Revolutions do not require corporate support. - 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/