> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:40:08 -0400 (EDT) "Matt W. Benjamin"
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Something which came up on the last Ganesha conn call is that we have
> > a pretty strong need for some ability to wait on a set of locks, and
> > perhaps receive events. Frank Filz believed that you
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:40:08 -0400 (EDT)
"Matt W. Benjamin" wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Something which came up on the last Ganesha conn call is that we have
> a pretty strong need for some ability to wait on a set of locks, and perhaps
> receive events. Frank Filz believed that you had made a
Hi Jeff,
Something which came up on the last Ganesha conn call is that we have
a pretty strong need for some ability to wait on a set of locks, and perhaps
receive events. Frank Filz believed that you had made a proposal which
would cover this. Can you elaborate on that?
Thanks,
Matt
-
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:47:07 +0200
> "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" wrote:
>
>> [CC+= linux-nfs@]
>>
>> On 04/29/2014 10:38 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> > Hi Jeff,
>> >
>> > I've been looking a bit at the fcntl()
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:47:07 +0200
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" wrote:
> [CC+= linux-nfs@]
>
> On 04/29/2014 10:38 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > I've been looking a bit at the fcntl() documentation of traditional
> > (F_SETLK) record locking, and a question just
[CC+= linux-nfs@]
On 04/29/2014 10:38 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I've been looking a bit at the fcntl() documentation of traditional
> (F_SETLK) record locking, and a question just jumped out at me. Is
> it worth considering some future-proofing in the design of OFD
Hi Jeff,
I've been looking a bit at the fcntl() documentation of traditional
(F_SETLK) record locking, and a question just jumped out at me. Is
it worth considering some future-proofing in the design of OFD locks
("open file description locks", formerly known as "file-private locks")?
What I
Hi Jeff,
I've been looking a bit at the fcntl() documentation of traditional
(F_SETLK) record locking, and a question just jumped out at me. Is
it worth considering some future-proofing in the design of OFD locks
(open file description locks, formerly known as file-private locks)?
What I am
[CC+= linux-nfs@]
On 04/29/2014 10:38 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I've been looking a bit at the fcntl() documentation of traditional
(F_SETLK) record locking, and a question just jumped out at me. Is
it worth considering some future-proofing in the design of OFD locks
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:47:07 +0200
Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
[CC+= linux-nfs@]
On 04/29/2014 10:38 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I've been looking a bit at the fcntl() documentation of traditional
(F_SETLK) record locking, and a
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:47:07 +0200
Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
[CC+= linux-nfs@]
On 04/29/2014 10:38 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I've been looking a
Hi Jeff,
Something which came up on the last Ganesha conn call is that we have
a pretty strong need for some ability to wait on a set of locks, and perhaps
receive events. Frank Filz believed that you had made a proposal which
would cover this. Can you elaborate on that?
Thanks,
Matt
-
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:40:08 -0400 (EDT)
Matt W. Benjamin m...@linuxbox.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Something which came up on the last Ganesha conn call is that we have
a pretty strong need for some ability to wait on a set of locks, and perhaps
receive events. Frank Filz believed that you had
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Matt W. Benjamin
m...@linuxbox.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Something which came up on the last Ganesha conn call is that we have
a pretty strong need for some ability to wait on a set of locks, and
perhaps receive events. Frank Filz believed that you
14 matches
Mail list logo
