Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:37:18 +0200
From: Kurt Roeckx <Q AT ping DOT be>
To: Gunnar Andre Dalsnes <hardon AT online DOT no>
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Help on posix file lock semantics
Message-ID: <20010822003718.A9717@ping.be>
References: <4 DOT 2 DOT 2 DOT 20010820221811 DOT 00b9d9a0 AT mail DOT online DOT no> <4 DOT 2 DOT 2 DOT 20010819225911 DOT 00b94970 AT pop DOT online DOT no> <4 DOT 2 DOT 2 DOT 20010819225911 DOT 00b94970 AT pop DOT online DOT no> <20010820131824 DOT A200 AT ping DOT be> <4 DOT 2 DOT 2 DOT 20010820221811 DOT 00b9d9a0 AT mail DOT online DOT no> <20010821121135 DOT A7837 AT ping DOT be> <4 DOT 2 DOT 2 DOT 20010821153100 DOT 00ba9ba0 AT mail DOT online DOT no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010821153100.00ba9ba0@mail.online.no>

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
> > > 
> > > 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?


Kurt


--
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/