[OpenAFS] Re: byte-range lock errors
Mon, 20 May 2013 09:58:32 -0500
On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:46:28 +0200
Jaap Winius <email@example.com> wrote:
> Anyway, if any modifications of 'fs messages' are only going to affect
> messages about byte-range locks, then option 2 (sysctl) would be fine.
> But if it ends up having more general utility, then go for option 3
> (an afsd directive).
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. Any changes to 'fs
messages' would be _instead of_ a sysctl or an afsd option. I'm leaning
towards a sysctl, though.