On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > This code would also make the behaviour consistent with prior to > 4cc9b9f2bf4d. But now I question whether or not the new behaviour is > what is desired going forward or not? > > Here's another thing to consider: the same command done over nfsv4 > returns an error. I guess nobody ever complained that flock over v3 > was successful but failed over v4? That is useful. Given that: - exclusive flock without write access over v4 never worked - As Tom notes, new man pages document that exclusive flock without write access isn't expected to work over NFS - it is hard to think of a genuine use case for exclusive flock without write access I'm inclined to leave this code as it is and declare your failing test to no longer be invalid. That is technically a regression, but regressions only matter if people notice them (and complain to Linus). No harm - no fowl. Thanks, NeilBrown
