On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:29:04 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Due to some unfortunate history, POSIX locks have very strange and > > unhelpful semantics. The thing that usually catches people by surprise > > is that they are dropped whenever the process closes any file descriptor > > associated with the inode. > > > > [...] > > > +#define F_GETLKP 36 > > +#define F_SETLKP 37 > > +#define F_SETLKPW 38 > > + > > +#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT > > +#ifndef F_GETLK64 > > +#define F_GETLKP64 39 > > +#define F_SETLKP64 40 > > +#define F_SETLKPW64 41 > > +#endif > > +#endif > > + > > Since there are no existing callers of these fcntls, can you get rid of > the non-64-bit variants? The implementation might be a bit more of > departure from current code, but it should make everything a lot cleaner > and make it easier (aka automatic) for new architectures to support this > feature. > That sounds reasonable, but I'll admit I had some trouble slogging through the morass of fcntl/fcntl64 syscall handling code. I mostly did the cargo-cult thing on this patch to get something that worked. So, to make sure I understand... You're basically suggesting that we just require that 32-bit userland always use fcntl64() to access these new cmd values? I'll try to do that, but I'll probably need someone to carefully review what I come up with (hint, hint). Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
