On 3/30/25 8:10 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > 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. For the record, which test exactly is failing? Is there a BugLink? > That is technically a regression, but > regressions only matter if people notice them (and complain to Linus). > No harm - no fowl. -- Chuck Lever
