Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > I think this is rather harder than you or Matt suspect. The problem > with backing local byte-range locks by whole-file locks on the server is > that to do it safely, the lock you get on the server has to be at least > as good as the local lock, and there's no way to atomically upgrade and > downgrade locks on the server.
Hence the need for the upgrade/downgrade proposal I made last April. I really should finish coding that. Of course, that still doesn't address the advisory vs mandatory bit and the fact that the file server doesn't actually track who holds locks at the moment. (* I need many more hours in the day or more money so I can hire more employees to do this work. Anyone have a lucky lottery ticket? *) Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
