On 13 Feb 2003, Sergey Suleymanov wrote: > > Maybe DENY_NONE must apply some lock too? > > It's very bad when some session may opens file with DENY_ALL > and there are few other sessions with DENY_NONE at the same > time.
it's problematic -- if DENY_NONE would apply a shared (read) lock then other processes cannot apply exclusive locks anymore. However, according to the table in RBIL, if a file is opened using DENY_NONE, then another program can still open it using DENY_READ in write only mode -- which would cause DOSEMU to apply an exclusive (write) lock, which is not possible. So I thought the best way is to have DENY_DONE just to do what it says: "deny nothing". well you can compare the tables in mfs.c -- the goal is to have them as similar as possible, but DOSEMU should never deny an open when real DOS would allow it (N's can be Y's but not the other way around). Bart - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
