> Reading RBIL for INT 21.5C, it seem to indicate that DR-DOS never was  
> able to figure out how to do it, and it wasn't until Novell got involved  
> that it actually started working correctly.

The DR-DOS discrepancy described in RBIL evidently indicates that the  
owner and applicability semantics differed slightly. Apart from that, the  
RBIL description is also incomplete. Hence verifying the correctness of an  
21.5C implementation, or correcting an incorrect one, of course requires  
figuring out the exact semantics by other means, such as looking through  
relevant literature or extensively testing the MS-DOS reference  
implementation.

> (E)DR-DOS could be another possibility for the server, too.

Yes.

As far as I know, DR-DOS does employ a "SHARE" extension similar to (but  
distinct from) the MS-DOS one to implement file locking. Does EDR-DOS  
provide a fitting "SHARE" as well, or does it implement locking directly  
in the kernel? (Particularly, the original DR-DOS "SHARE" potentially  
might fail to function correctly on EDR-DOS 7.01.06 and later, ie the  
versions with FAT32 FS support. But I do not know its interface well  
enough to say so; you should ask the EDR-DOS developer whether handle- and  
area-based locking are correctly implemented.)

Regards,
Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Reply via email to