From: Ted Unangst (tedutedunangst.com)
Date: Fri May 03 2013 - 14:31:35 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:55, Ted Unangst wrote:
> As much as I hate adding more code to lockmgr, the recent rototill
> made one incompatible change. We need to preserve the difference
> between shared and exclusive locks (only tmpfs seems to care).

Thinking about this some more, I like it even less.

VOP_ISLOCKED is actually documented by the man page to return either 0
or 1. Not some LK flag. The fact that some filesystems are lazy and
just feed up lockstatus doesn't mean lockstatus is broken. It means
tmpfs_islocked and ufs_islocked are broken. The code currently in the
tree is (at long last) compliant with the man page.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]