Re: [fuse-devel] [2.8.x] ulockmgr_server issue / fusexmp_fh example

[Stef B. <st...@gm...>]

>>
>> Yep, ulockmgr_server should be the owner.
>
> I wonder: if FUSE is handling GETLK would it be possible to set l_pid to
> the value that fuse_get_context()->pid had back when the (successful)
> call to SETLK(W) took place?  Unless the kernel prevents that it would
> allow pretending that the actual lock requestee is the owner, not
> ulockmgr_server.  Do you see problems with this approach?  If so maybe
> it could be made a mount parameter switch?
>
> Best,
>

Good thought. But this pretending is good enough? I do not know.
Internally the owner is different than FUSE will report.

Stef