Re: [PATCH v5 14/14] locks: add new fcntl cmd values for handlingfile private locks

[Jeff Layton]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:29:04 -0800
Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/