From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: Linux' NFS locking b0rken? Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:12:06 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <1085512326.9224.33.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Cc: Dan Stromberg , Jeffrey Layton , Olaf Kirch , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BShLP-000306-Ee for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 May 2004 12:12:11 -0700 Received: from dh132.citi.umich.edu ([141.211.133.132] helo=lade.trondhjem.org ident=Debian-exim) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.30) id 1BShLO-0000ZN-Br for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 25 May 2004 12:12:10 -0700 To: "Ara.T.Howard" In-Reply-To: Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: P=E5 ty , 25/05/2004 klokka 15:08, skreiv Ara.T.Howard: > yes, in that it would work, you simply would not coordinate with other > processes which do NOT use fcntl based locks. ruby and perl ship with > implemtations of flock which are, in fact, fctnl under the hood. No it would not. Read the manpages... Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs