Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:22:18 +0200 From: Daichi GOTO <daichi@ongs.co.jp> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Daichi GOTO <daichi@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fcntl always fails to delete lock file, and PID is always -6464 Message-ID: <91E542A6-331C-4164-84FE-187916338B60@ongs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <201010111150.00785.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20101004123725.65d09b9e.daichi@ongs.co.jp> <AANLkTi=w5ZAfRymSYbL6X37uyYX17J2dW8LHVcPXZ_%2Bb@mail.gmail.com> <20101005153926.88b4c1e1.daichi@freebsd.org> <201010111150.00785.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sent from my iPad On Oct 11, 2010, at 5:50 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 2:39:26 am Daichi GOTO wrote: >> Next step discussion engaged from this research I guess. >> >> Should we do change FreeBSD's fcntl(2) to return correct l_pid >> when called with F_SETLK? Or keep current behavior?? >> I want to hear other developers ideas and suggetions. > > POSIX doesn't say that F_SETLK returns a valid l_pid, so I think FreeBSD's > current behavior is fine. Yes, I agree. POSIX says so. > -- > John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?91E542A6-331C-4164-84FE-187916338B60>