On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 12:10 -0700, Mark Spiegel wrote:
> Thanks Dan. How about the second part. Should the PENDING_LOCK be
> taken en route from the SHARD_LOCK to EXCLUSIVE_LOCK? Which is right,
> the code or the function header?
Doesn't really matter as far as I know. Which I guess means
Thanks Dan. How about the second part. Should the PENDING_LOCK be
taken en route from the SHARD_LOCK to EXCLUSIVE_LOCK? Which is right,
the code or the function header?
Dan Kennedy wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:56 -0700, Mark Spiegel wrote:
I posted this to the list last Wednesday and
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:56 -0700, Mark Spiegel wrote:
> I posted this to the list last Wednesday and haven't seen a reply.
> D0n't want to create traffic in the defect database if I am in error.
> Anyone want to take a crack at this?
>
> While working on a VFS for use in 3.5.1, I was looking
I posted this to the list last Wednesday and haven't seen a reply.
D0n't want to create traffic in the defect database if I am in error.
Anyone want to take a crack at this?
While working on a VFS for use in 3.5.1, I was looking at the winLock()
and have a question.
Is it possible for the
Mark Spiegel wrote:
While working on a VFS for use in 3.5.1, I was looking at the winLock()
and have a question.
Is it possible for the lock on a winFile object to progress from
SHARED_LOCK to EXCLUSIVE_LOCK without first acquiring a RESERVED_LOCK?
I have a similar question. I, too, am
While working on a VFS for use in 3.5.1, I was looking at the winLock()
and have a question.
Is it possible for the lock on a winFile object to progress from
SHARED_LOCK to EXCLUSIVE_LOCK without first acquiring a RESERVED_LOCK?
Assuming that it is, it seems that the comments at the start of
6 matches
Mail list logo
