--On Friday, July 24, 2009 10:31:27 AM -0400 "Matt W. Benjamin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Hartmut, Felix,
I see the point, it's not useful if it's only for decoration. It does
feel intuitively right to have txid, if it could be used by a family of
RPCs. Might make for cleaner interfaces for cancellation, abandonment,
(not to mention futures--reversibility, delegation, ...)?
Also note that multiple _reads_ can be going on at once, and you want to be
able to track those, too, so you can avoid letting anyone write while
there's a read in progress.
The fileserver simply assumes that anyone who tries to extend or release a
lock is the caller that actually holds the lock, instead of using a
transaction ID. Let's not make the same mistake here.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
