From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d190610310809v63976632u91b4f4983ca4fb5d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed,  1 Nov 2006 03:09:41 +1100
From: "Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P and locking
In-Reply-To: <001a50a78f873e5868ec3fd72944686a@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <775b8d190610310644w822038frdc204969ed924ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<001a50a78f873e5868ec3fd72944686a@terzarima.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: da1db6cc-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

yes. but you have no choice if a non plan9 machine requests
a strange locking operation.  either you handle it or you don't.

brucee

On 11/1/06, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> >> > So far my plan to extend is to have messages mimicking fcntl, but
> >> > maybe that's not the best way to get it done. Did anyone work on
> >> > locking and would like to share their experience or opinion?
>
> in commercial unix database work i never found the in-built fcntl or record locking
> particularly useful and did my own.  it was the usual `both too much
> and too little' with the system's attempt, and thus i found it fairly pointless.
> i wrote up something about it at the time but sadly that was years before
> the dumps started.
>
>