from memory there was also someone who put up a set of changes for oplocks somewhere, but I have completely forgotten who/where/how, unless it was you....
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Richard Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011221 15:11] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > One of my tasks is to add oplock support to FreeBSD so that we (Panasas) > > can allow correct caching of files by Windows clients in the presence of > > NFS clients using the same files. > > > > We have a preliminary implementation, based on the Linux implementation, > > but it is a gross hack because there is no way for the kernel, when it > > delivers a signal, to indicate the fd that caused delivery of the signal. > > > > Linux and Solaris have an fd field in struct siginfo_t which allows the > > kernel to indicate, for signals relating to files, to indicate which fd > > the signal relates to. > > > > I notice that in FreeBSD struct siginfo_t seems to have int > > __spare__[7]; and would like to use one of those spare fields as si_fd. > > > > While I can do that in our code base, if I want to contribute the OpLock > > code it would be useful if the FreeBSD community finds this change > > agreeable. > > > > Are there any counter suggestions or any big objections? > > There was already a big mess of a discussion about how this would > be much better done via kqueue than with realtime signals. > > I guess if you can get a working implementation that is compatible > with the existing interfaces it would work, however it's a _much_ > better idea to use kqueue to deliver this sort of notification. > > And yes, it has been discussed in the lists already. > > -Alfred > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
