Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> integrated into the lockf structure allocation and deallocation
> :> functions).
> :
> :Well, the number of locks needs to be kept track of on a per-process
> :level as well for possible setuid() transfers. I think that passing a
> :struct lockf * is a good idea; but it's not moot unless the process
> :count is upgraded in the lf_alloc() instead of in chgposixlockcnt() (but
> :I don't think that's very clean, is it?)
>
> Sometimes these things just fall into place, other times they are
> predetermined to be ugly no matter what you do :-).
>
> If its going to be ugly it is best to put the ugliness all in one place.
> So, for example, it is generally better to pass the governing structure
> to a wrapper procedure with ugly insides then it is to strew 'pp' all over
> the source file. Sometimes special cases prevent it from working out,
> and sometimes things just fall into place and you get an elegant solution.
>
> -Matt
Yeah, and if you strew pp all over the place, it smells bad, too.
lf_alloc() is going to have to be ugly, just because it needs to know
about the process to pass to incposixlockcnt().
Thanks for this info, I'll have a modified sys patch soon.
--Devon