Christopher Masto wrote:
>
> > The thing about well-intentioned but incorrect locking code is that
> > it will appear to work fine, until it trips over the one code path
> > where it forgets to lock some file that it should have locked. And
> > even then, the code will "work" just fine, until multiple processes
> > are accessing that file at the same time.
> >
> > I think it is appropriate for an operating system to provide an option
> > such that *it* (the system) will enforce the locking, and not have to
> > trust that all code-paths in all programs will do the right thing
> > WRT advisory locking.
>
> Dunno about that.. if you're using advisory locking, you know to say
> "lock the file, then read the data, do your calculation, write it out,
> and unlock". This manditory locking sounds like an invitation for
> disaster. "I don't need to pay attention to the details because
> the kernel will take care of it for me."
Wrong paradigm. Look at it from the lockers standpoint: "Even if other
processes don't do locking, they won't be able to screw me because I've
locked the critical part of the file."
> Actually, I don't really understand the paradigm. Two processes need
> to safely update a file, so one of them aquires a mandatory lock, and
> the other.. uh.. just blocks trying to open the file?
No, the locks are not per-file. You can lock multiple arbitrary byte ranges.
Any file trying to write (shared lock) and/or read (exclusive lock) will be
blocked until the lock is released.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://softweyr.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
