From: David Robinson (robinson@jetsun.eng.sun.com)
Date: 11/25/98-01:51:13 PM Z
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:51:13 -0800 (PST)
From: David Robinson <robinson@jetsun.eng.sun.com>
Message-Id: <199811251951.LAA15038@jetsun.eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Locking with shares
> I would like to see some more explicit verbage on the behavior of
> multiple locking requests for the same byte range.
> In particular, are the locks binary or counted? Iis it an error for a
> client to lock the same byte range using the same nfs_lockowner?
> This has been a problem for Windows NFS clients and NLM.
> My vote is: Binary and Yes.
I would definately support binary. Unix maintains just one lock
per process:
There will be at most one type of lock set for each byte in
the file. Before a successful return from an F_SETLK,
F_SETLK64, F_SETLKW, or F_SETLKW64 request when the calling
process has previously existing locks on bytes in the region
specified by the request, the previous lock type for each
byte in the specified region will be replaced by the new
lock type. As specified above under the descriptions of
shared locks and exclusive locks, an F_SETLK, F_SETLK64,
F_SETLKW, or F_SETLKW64 request will (respectively) fail or
block when another process has existing locks on bytes in
the specified region and the type of any of those locks con-
flicts with the type specified in the request.
However Unix does allow you to rerequest the same lock again.
What are the Windows semantics and would this be a problem?
-David
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:46:33 AM Z CST