Very cool! Well, shoot, now that you have that implemented on windows, unix side will have to catch up. *laugh*
-- Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Neulinger EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679 UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Altman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:25 AM > To: Neulinger, Nathan > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] byte-range locking > > Byte-range locking has now been implemented for Windows. The code > has been committed to the cvs head. I hope to backport the changes > to a post 1.4.0 release after it is proven to be stable. > > Jeffrey Altman > > > Neulinger, Nathan wrote: > > > Yes, it's been discussed several times, and yes, it should almost > > certainly work, please read the list archives and twiki. > > > > No, patches don't exist. Most useful platform is windows, > and I don't > > have much interest in developing for it. > > > > Patches would certainly be welcomed on the windows side > since it is so > > negatively impacted by the lack of byte range locks. > > > > -- 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 Joe Buehler > >>Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 9:02 AM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: [OpenAFS-devel] byte-range locking > >> > >>If I understand the existing code correctly, a server process > >>(I don't know which one -- fileserver?) keeps track of > >>clients that have > >>exclusive or non-exclusive locks on a file. Clients are > >>responsible for keeping track of which processes have such locks. > >> > >>So it looks as though it should be easy to add local byte-range > >>locking for processes on a single machine. Read locks would be > >>propagated to the server as shared locks, and write locks would > >>propagate as exclusive locks, and the byte ranges would be > >>handled in the local client kernel code. > >> > >>Does someone already have patches for this perhaps? > >>-- > >>Joe Buehler > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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 > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
