Mike Barcroft wrote: >Richard Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>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. >>> Well, it turns out that there are two problems with what I suggested: 1, signals are lossy, in that if multiple signals occur, only one might be delivered; and 2, there is no place to store any signal-related information in the kernel, in any case.
So, it seems like kqueue is really the only game in town, but I will need an appropriate filter, and it would be nice if I could get some sort of async notification that there were events ready to be processed, as I really don't want to rewrite Samba completely, just to support kqueue ... Hmmm, perhaps the approach should be to signal that leases/oplocks have been broken, but provide the details via kqueue. >>> >>>And yes, it has been discussed in the lists already. >>> >>OK, I will go and look at the discussion ... >> > >Unfortunately this discussion mistakenly took place on a FreeBSD >mailing list intended for administrative-only issues, so it isn't >publicly available on our end. Luckily, a Samba mailing list was >on the CC line. You should be able to find it on the ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives circa September 2001. > >Best regards, >Mike Barcroft > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > -- Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], LPIC-1 www.samba.org, www.ethereal.com, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours, Special Edition, Using Samba To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
