On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 19:31, Bart Oldeman wrote:
> there are still some differences between POSIX and DOS locks though:
Yeah, I mega-oversimplified in this post. Sorry.
--
Bryan J. Smith | Peace is a fruitless endeavor
http://thebs.org | When a defeated aggressor
Enginee
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:07:27AM -0200, Anderson Pereira Ataides wrote
> > NFS *does* support locking though.
> I tried to mount a nfs resource and two linux boxes can't see locks made by
> each other. That means a file locked in a linux box is not seen by the other
> Linux box. Am I missing so
> NFS *does* support locking though.
I tried to mount a nfs resource and two linux boxes can't see locks made by
each other. That means a file locked in a linux box is not seen by the other
Linux box. Am I missing something?
Reading dosemu docs, it's written that I must mount nfs nolock. What do
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> > NFS *does* support locking though.
>
> Yes, and it does it in a way that is far more "DOS-like" -- one write lock per file.
there are still some differences between POSIX and DOS locks though:
DOS has 6 kinds of locks:
* COMPATIBILITY
* DENY_NONE
*
Quoting Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ok I browsed around a bit and looked at the kernel source, here's the
> real answer.
> Current (linux kernel 2.4.20) smbfs doesn't support locking at all.
> you may look at
> http://www.hojdpunkten.ac.se/054/samba
> to see some experimental patches thoug
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Gregor Ibic wrote:
> I cant, it is locked. It says resource deadlock avoided.
ok I browsed around a bit and looked at the kernel source, here's the real
answer.
Current (linux kernel 2.4.20) smbfs doesn't support locking at all.
you may look at
http://www.hojdpunkten.ac.se/
