Nathan,
At present, the client is not blocked, the behavior is as if the command was F_SETLK/64.
Matt
Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
Neat trick using the posix_lock_file routine...
One concern - does it properly handle a lock that has requested blocking? i.e. SETLKW?
I don't see that flag anywhere in the code... And importantly - does it actually block just that one process when that single lock is requested?
That was one of the tricky spots that I got into when I started fiddling with the idea.
-- Nathan
------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Neulinger EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679 UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Benjamin
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 3:19 PM
To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OpenAFS-devel] Byte-range Locking in Linux CM (Implements Nathan Neulinger Proposal, Linux)
AFS Folk,
Jhutz has reviewed--he at least agrees the code likely does what is intended, which is to implement Nathan Neulinger's locking proposal phase 1, where a CM implements local byte-range locking, and shadows such locks with whole-file locks on the AFS fileservers. Posting to dev and bugs, per Jeff.
Change is confined to osi_vnodeops.c, except for a preprocessor define in afs_vnop_flock.c (which would presumably get switched on somehow or other).
Patch is against 1.3.80.
Matt
_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
