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

[Neulinger, Nathan]

Ok. I would be concerned about adding that patch as-is without further
study as it reduces current functionality in the case of whole-file
locks. That seems dangerous to me.

-- 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: Matt Benjamin [mailto:matt@linuxbox.com]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 3:44 PM
> To: Neulinger, Nathan
> Cc: openafs-devel@openafs.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Byte-range Locking in Linux CM=20
> (Implements Nathan Neulinger Proposal, Linux)
>=20
> Nathan,
>=20
> At present, the client is not blocked, the behavior is as if=20
> the command=20
> was F_SETLK/64.
>=20
> Matt
>=20
> Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
>=20
> >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=20
> importantly - does it
> >actually block just that one process when that single lock=20
> is requested?
> >
> >That was one of the tricky spots that I got into when I=20
> 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
> >
> > =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)
> >>
> >>AFS Folk,
> >>
> >>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,=20
> and shadows=20
> >>such locks with whole-file locks on the AFS fileservers. =20
> >>Posting to dev=20
> >>and bugs, per Jeff.
> >>
> >>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).
> >>
> >>Patch is against 1.3.80.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >>
> >>
> >>   =20
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >OpenAFS-devel mailing list
> >OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
> >https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
> >
> > =20
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20