Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:09:50 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <19990823120949.F83273@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199908230207.WAA19218@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from Garrett Wollman on Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 10:07:04PM -0400 References: <19990823095310.A83273@freebie.lemis.com> <199908230031.RAA00909@apollo.backplane.com> <19990823100654.B83273@freebie.lemis.com> <199908230207.WAA19218@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 22 August 1999 at 22:07:04 -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:06:54 +0930, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> said: > >> Correct. I suppose it's worth discussing what the default should be. >> Should they get EAGAIN or block? Obviously you'd want a way of >> specifying which, but there would have to be a default for >> non-lock-aware programs. I think I'd go for blocking; it's less error >> prone. > > I'd be strongly opposed to any sort of mandatory locking. The whole > notion is unspeakably evil, although this is mitigated somewhat if it > does not apply to processes with appropriate privilege. That's a strange thing to say. Should we do away with locks in the kernel too? Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990823120949.F83273>