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

[Matt Benjamin]

Nathan,

At present, the client is not blocked, the behavior is as if the command 
was F_SETLK/64.

Matt

Neulinger, Nathan wrote:

>Neat trick using the posix_lock_file routine... 
>
>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
> 
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: openafs-devel-admin@openafs.org 
>>[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 
>>(Implements Nathan Neulinger Proposal, Linux)
>>
>>AFS Folk,
>>
>>Jhutz has reviewed--he at least agrees the code likely does what is 
>>intended, which is to implement Nathan Neulinger's locking proposal 
>>phase 1, where a CM implements local byte-range locking, and shadows 
>>such locks with whole-file locks on the AFS fileservers.  
>>Posting to dev 
>>and bugs, per Jeff.
>>
>>Change is confined to osi_vnodeops.c, except for a 
>>preprocessor define 
>>in afs_vnop_flock.c (which would presumably get switched on 
>>somehow or 
>>other).
>>
>>Patch is against 1.3.80.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenAFS-devel mailing list
>OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
>https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
>
>  
>