Very little, I believe.
However, I sent a patch to do something usefully like a Linux equivalent
of this behavior a few months ago, and Nathan has reviewed it.
Matt
Derek Atkins wrote:
How much of this implementation is in a place where it could be used
by a Unix client?
-derek
"Neulinger, Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
--
Matt Benjamin
The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
http://linuxbox.com
tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
