Svante Signell, le Mon 02 Mar 2015 11:03:22 +0100, a écrit : > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:57 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > > But again, I'm still unsure why you believe that locks are being > > > > > inherited through fork(): before introducing a fork hook to forcibly > > > > > unlock something, one needs to be absolutely sure that it's actually > > > > > locked. Actually it'd even look like a design flaw if two process > > > > > could > > > > > actually hold a lock on the same piece of a file... > > Well, the file record locking patches were mainly written by Neal. So if > you are so very expert on everything,
I'm not expert on the code that Neal wrote. > maybe you could help me find where the design flaw is. That would take time, which I don't have. > I have not managed to find it so far. The patches > have been submitted twice, latest (git mail) version starts with: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2015-01/msg00108.html > and > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2015-01/msg00106.html Yes, and that's still in my mbox, along a lot of other things. Yes, that sucks and I'm not happy with that, but days are 24h long only. Samuel
