Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010822010059.00ba5600@mail.online.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:31:39 +0200
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Gunnar Andre Dalsnes <hardon@online.no>
Subject: Re: Help on posix file lock semantics
Cc: Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be>
In-Reply-To: <20010822003718.A9717@ping.be>
References: <4.2.2.20010821153100.00ba9ba0@mail.online.no>
 <4.2.2.20010820221811.00b9d9a0@mail.online.no>
 <4.2.2.20010819225911.00b94970@pop.online.no>
 <4.2.2.20010819225911.00b94970@pop.online.no>
 <20010820131824.A200@ping.be>
 <4.2.2.20010820221811.00b9d9a0@mail.online.no>
 <20010821121135.A7837@ping.be>
 <4.2.2.20010821153100.00ba9ba0@mail.online.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 22.08.01 00:37 , you wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:11:02AM +0200, Gunnar Andre Dalsnes wrote:
> > At 21.08.01 12:11 , you wrote:
> > >On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 10:55:54PM +0200, Gunnar Andre Dalsnes wrote:
> > > > At 20.08.01 13:18 , you wrote:
> > > > >On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 11:06:13PM +0200, Gunnar Andre Dalsnes wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > And locks outside of upgraded regions are resized to fit and kept as standalone locks?
> > > > 
> > > > Example:
> > > > A file has write lock from off. 10 to 20 and read lock from off. 30 to 40.
> > > > A new read lock from off. 15 to 35 upgrades both existing overlapped regions.
> > > > 
> > > > Now we have three locks?
> > > > -write lock off. 10 to 15
> > > > -read lock off. 15 to 35
> > > > -read lock off. 35 to 40
> > > > 
> > > > Or maybe they merged? 
> > > > -write lock off. 10 to 15
> > > > -read lock off. 15 to 40

I don't know if we have a misunderstanding here, 
but it's not like I merged them, but possibly automagically by the (linux) os kernel, which I want to emulate...

> > > > 
> > > > The reason i ask is that i want F_GETLK to behave correctly if called afterwards.
> > >
> > >Thinking about it again ...
> > >
> > >Other times you don't merge.  If you had 10 to 19, and then get
> > >20 to 29, both same lock, would you merge them?  I don't think
> > >so.
> > 
> > What do you mean? Would I merge them?
>
>Those 2 regions follow each other.  I think you're not supposed
>to merge those regions even if you could.
>
>If you don't merge regions in any other case, why would you
>suddenly want to merge them in the case of overlapping regions?

But if the (linux) os kernel does it automagically for us, I want to do it too:-)


>Kurt

Gunnar


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/