Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - Re: [SM-Sorcery] Liblock

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Geoffrey Derber <gderber AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • Cc: sm-sorcery <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery] Liblock
  • Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:27:14 -0500

Dufflebunk wrote:

There is a change to a liblock behaviour which I though was unused.
Before, process children inherited locks of their parents. Now locks
aren't inherited. This is causing problems in updates and possibly
summon (although the summon problems resolves itself after a time I
think).

These cases where the inheritance was used but is now broken can be
fixed, or I can put the inheritance back in. The problem with putting it
back in is it slows down the checking substantialy, as it means /proc
has to walked to get all PPIDs, then each of those PIDs have to be
checked... every time you try to lock a file, unlock a file, and every
once in a while to clean the list of stale locks.

So, are there any opinions on this subject?


One question, I have the feeling this is going to come across wrong, but if it does slow things down, why was it there originally? Was there any benefit to having the full inheritance?

I just want to know the full benefits and costs to each solution before I really voice my opinion.

Geoff





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page