From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263240AbVFXLRh (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:17:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263273AbVFXLPA (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:15:00 -0400 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:55961 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263270AbVFXLNm (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:13:42 -0400 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Organization: Private Site running Debian GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: <42BBB47C.9010002@slaphack.com> X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.7.8-20050315 ("Scalpay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.8.1 (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:13:38 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <42BBB47C.9010002@slaphack.com> you wrote: > How about a poor-man's isolation -- any process other than that > responsible for the transaction sees a consistent state, never a > transaction-in-progress. I'm sure there's a name for that. It is Isolation Level Serializeable. It is the less performant isolation level and still can generate deadlocks if you have two process doing transactions. A more simpler solution would be that process without transactions never see infligt tx and a second process simple returnes a retry error if touching a locked ressource. Bernd