From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F35C433E9 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 00:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951176146D for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 00:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1353456AbhCDAUg (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2021 19:20:36 -0500 Received: from p3plsmtpa11-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([68.178.252.110]:52421 "EHLO p3plsmtpa11-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1379715AbhCCRqC (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:46:02 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.116] ([71.184.94.153]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id HVUmlB2UCysOoHVUmlpJsP; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:41:13 -0700 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Q50XX66a c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=603fca39 a=vbvdVb1zh1xTTaY8rfQfKQ==:117 a=vbvdVb1zh1xTTaY8rfQfKQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=SEc3moZ4AAAA:8 a=rTsI85MkaD2DFeaHCx4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=5oRCH6oROnRZc2VpWJZ3:22 X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: tom@talpey.com Subject: Re: [man-pages][PATCH v1] flock.2: add CIFS details To: =?UTF-8?Q?Aur=c3=a9lien_Aptel?= , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com Cc: smfrench@gmail.com References: <20210302154831.17000-1-aaptel@suse.com> <5ae02f1f-af45-25aa-71b1-4f8782286158@talpey.com> <8735xcxkv5.fsf@suse.com> <87zgzkw4ya.fsf@suse.com> From: Tom Talpey Message-ID: <50268813-b6cd-8959-26a9-79ce75366c64@talpey.com> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:41:13 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87zgzkw4ya.fsf@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfHo6Q74mDvowcGKiwdTMTE7yxk9Y4AJDvJ3lmuR200BrV34EqvoMKLg2nqIh2RCwmfKBp/7Quj15N+dRQJu5Vlq01lhpjjl7RfL5n4VN6fn2XVtYdedg NxxT3ermjZBhp+CLCTHj2fwPzn/p8X2FE+twP4oV8mI4srwVvZazs9XVbYOW1avBaP6UKvBeMM+IDVOT5AG9XCOLOMAw+46iiQc4TBPNn5tJqAoI+GOutd7I 3sdobejCifY82+VV1FcXFSYrHtUPgDn5Fa6/EgJBhlVFiEgwQBi0OQidwZrCxwa0fMuxThD9l8E156So4enHAwG+un4FL0ZoP3B9lWCgYjRjKCzC7I7NQUqW sSUu+tlD Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On 3/3/2021 11:57 AM, Aurélien Aptel wrote: > Tom Talpey writes: >> I don't fully understand your response. What does "knows about syscall >> from local apps" mean, from a practical perspective? That it never >> forwards any flock() call to the server? Or that it somehow caches >> the flock() results, and never checks if the server has a conflict >> from another client? > > Yes that's what I'm trying to say. Locking never goes on the > wire. Server is not aware of locking, and thus neither are any other > clients. Ok, but that's what I wrote in the earlier suggestion: "In Linux kernels up to 5.4, flock() is not propagated over SMB. A file with such locks will not appear locked for remote clients." So I'm still confused what to suggest, but I'll respond on the other fork of the thread. Tom.