Re: fcntl: F_SETLEASE/F_RDLCK question

[William A.(Andy) Adamson]

> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:55:42AM -0400, William A.(Andy) Adamson wrote:
> > i believe the current implementation is correct. opening a file for write 
> > means that you can not have a read lease, caller included.
> 
> Why not?  Certainly, others will not be able to take out a read lease,
> so there's very little point to only having a read lease, but I don't
> see why we should deny it.
> 

by definition: a read lease means there are no writers. so, the question is 
not 'why not', the question is why? why hand out a read lease to an open for 
write?

-->Andy

-
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/