That's certainly the implementation, v_filocks. But I'd be wary of saying that the implementation drove the design. Remember that people have historically dis

That's certainly the implementation, v_filocks. But I'd be wary of saying that the implementation drove the design. Remember that people have historically disagreed about synchronization mechanisms and which ones are the good ones. It's quite possible that the design was simply intentionally that way, not following from any implementation considerations. For example: Dave Cutler architect of Windows NT called the OS/2 mutex mechanism a "mutant" because xe thought the semantics were bad. But the semantics that xe didn't like were designed so that a locking thread was told whenever the preceding mutex owner lost the lock because it ABENDed, and that thus whatever the mutex was guarding was probably not in a consistent unlocked state. One has only to cast one's mind back to how file sharing flags worked, or just didn't work, on MS/PC/DR-DOS when they first came along (Hands up if you remember compatibility mode sharing, or Netware's added spin to the whole thing.) to be reminded that sometimes design was just odd, by today's standards. (-: By the way: NFS began in 1984 and was available for AT&T Unix System 5 Release 2. File locking with lockf()/fcntl() dates from AT&T Unix System 5 Release 3 which was actually later, not earlier. Also remember that System 5 Release 3 at the same time introduced RFS, which did do locking and statefully maintained open file descriptions on the server, so the idea of the PID being accessible is a bit of a red herring.