[OpenAFS] Re: safe+portable way to determine if byte-range-locking is dangerous?

[Adam Megacz]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> I thought, on Linux at least, that some combination of the cache manager
> and the generic file system layer caused byte-range locking to work on the
> local host even though other hosts wouldn't see the lock.

Crud, you're right.  Argh.  I wrote+tested the sqlite patch on MacOSX
(and it worked properly there, too).

Any suggestions?  Is Linux the only client platform that engages in
this degree of superfakery?

I'm really convinced at this point that the byte-range-lock-faking
(which I assume was introduced by Transarc) was/is an incredibly bad
idea and a dangerous thing.  I mean really... unix/posix apps don't
ask for byte range locks unless they have a good reason for doing so.

  - a

-- 
PGP/GPG: 5C9F F366 C9CF 2145 E770  B1B8 EFB1 462D A146 C380