From: stsp <stsp2@yandex.ru>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fd/locks: allow get the lock owner by F_OFD_GETLK
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:42:14 +0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0188af4b-fc74-df61-8e00-5bc81bbcb1cc@yandex.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26dce201000d32fd3ca1ca5b5f8cd4f5ae0b38b2.camel@kernel.org>
21.06.2023 15:35, Jeff Layton пишет:
> I don't think we can change this at this point.
>
> The bottom line (again) is that OFD locks are owned by the file
> descriptor (much like with flock()), and since file descriptors can be
> shared across multiple process it's impossible to say that some single
> process owns it.
What's the problem with 2 owners?
Can't you get one of them, rather than
meaningless -1?
Compare this situation with read locks.
They can overlap, so when you get an
info about a read lock (except for the
new F_UNLCK case), you get the info
about *some* of the locks in that range.
In the case of multiple owners, you
likewise get the info about about some
owner. If you iteratively send them a
"please release this lock" message
(eg in a form of SIGKILL), then you
traverse all, and end up with the
lock-free area.
Is there really any problem here?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-21 10:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-20 9:55 [PATCH 0/3] RFC: F_OFD_GETLK should provide more info Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20 9:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] fs/locks: F_UNLCK extension for F_OFD_GETLK Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20 10:46 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 11:00 ` stsp
2023-06-20 11:15 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21 15:24 ` stsp
2023-06-20 9:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] fd/locks: allow get the lock owner by F_OFD_GETLK Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20 10:51 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 10:57 ` stsp
2023-06-20 11:12 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 11:45 ` stsp
2023-06-20 12:02 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 12:34 ` stsp
2023-06-20 13:19 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-20 13:39 ` stsp
2023-06-20 13:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-20 13:47 ` stsp
2023-06-20 14:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-20 15:45 ` stsp
2023-06-20 17:05 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-21 2:54 ` stsp
2023-06-23 13:10 ` David Laight
2023-06-20 13:58 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21 6:57 ` stsp
2023-06-21 10:35 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21 10:42 ` stsp [this message]
2023-06-21 11:05 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-21 11:22 ` stsp
2023-06-21 11:26 ` stsp
2023-06-23 15:25 ` Christian Brauner
2023-06-23 17:18 ` stsp
2023-06-27 16:00 ` Jeff Layton
2023-06-27 16:20 ` stsp
2023-06-20 9:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] selftests: add OFD lock tests Stas Sergeev
2023-06-20 11:06 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0188af4b-fc74-df61-8e00-5bc81bbcb1cc@yandex.ru \
--to=stsp2@yandex.ru \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).