This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Help on posix file lock semantics
At 22.08.01 02:19 , you wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 01:31:39AM +0200, Gunnar Andre Dalsnes wrote:
> > At 22.08.01 00:37 , you wrote:
> > >
> > >Those 2 regions follow each other. I think you're not supposed
> > >to merge those regions even if you could.
> > >
> > >If you don't merge regions in any other case, why would you
> > >suddenly want to merge them in the case of overlapping regions?
> >
> > But if the (linux) os kernel does it automagically for us, I want to do it too:-)
>
>The comment for posix_lock_file() in fs/locks.s says:
>"We merge adjacent locks whenever possible.", so I guess it
>always does.
To sort this out ofa, I went out and got a copy of Suse, and this was what I got:
-if any separate adjacent locks with same type were set, they merged. (regardless of type)
-if a new lock overlapped existing lock with same type, they merged. (regardless of type)
-if a new read lock overlapped existing write lock, the overlapped region changed to type read.
-if a new write lock overlapped existing read lock, the overlapped region changed to type write.
Not very unlike our assumptions:-)
>Kurt
Now I have enough info on this, to continue on the hard part, the coding...
Thank you very much for your time, Kurt:-)
Gunnar
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/