Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ihnp3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp
From: dhp@ihnp3.UUCP (Douglas H. Price)
Newsgroups: net.database
Subject: Re: locks
Message-ID: <154@ihnp3.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 11:50:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnp3.154
Posted: Fri Sep 13 11:50:05 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 06:33:26 EDT
References: <10185@ucbvax.ARPA> <5909@utzoo.UUCP> <10233@ucbvax.ARPA> <341@harvard.ARPA> <2170@ukma.UUCP>
Reply-To: dhp@ihnp3.UUCP (Douglas H. Price)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs at Indian Hill, Naperville, IL
Lines: 13

Unfortunately, creating a file is about the second most expensive thing
you can do in UN*X (the first being fork/exec).  The problem is not one of
capability, but of efficiency.  So, if you ignore the possibility of a
driver-mediated form of locking, I end up agreeing with the concept of a
Operating System supported set of locks, preferably addressed with some form
of namespace.  Note that System V+ machines have this capability in the
form of the semaphore ops, though I might argue with the naming and 
scoping rules currently implemented.
-- 
						Douglas H. Price
						Analysts International Corp.
						@ AT&T Bell Laboratories
						..!ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp