[OpenAFS-devel] Byte-range Locking in Linux CM (Implements Nathan Neulinger Proposal, Linux)

[Neulinger, Nathan]

Neat trick using the posix_lock_file routine...=20

One concern - does it properly handle a lock that has requested
blocking? i.e. SETLKW?

I don't see that flag anywhere in the code... And importantly - does it
actually block just that one process when that single lock is requested?

That was one of the tricky spots that I got into when I started fiddling
with the idea.

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nneul@umr.edu
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-6679
UMR Information Technology             Fax: (573) 341-4216
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openafs-devel-admin@openafs.org=20
> [mailto:openafs-devel-admin@openafs.org] On Behalf Of Matt Benjamin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 3:19 PM
> To: openafs-devel@openafs.org; openafs-bugs@openafs.org
> Subject: [OpenAFS-devel] Byte-range Locking in Linux CM=20
> (Implements Nathan Neulinger Proposal, Linux)
>=20
> AFS Folk,
>=20
> Jhutz has reviewed--he at least agrees the code likely does what is=20
> intended, which is to implement Nathan Neulinger's locking proposal=20
> phase 1, where a CM implements local byte-range locking, and shadows=20
> such locks with whole-file locks on the AFS fileservers. =20
> Posting to dev=20
> and bugs, per Jeff.
>=20
> Change is confined to osi_vnodeops.c, except for a=20
> preprocessor define=20
> in afs_vnop_flock.c (which would presumably get switched on=20
> somehow or=20
> other).
>=20
> Patch is against 1.3.80.
>=20
> Matt
>=20
>=20