Quoting Andrew Deason <[email protected]>:
That doesn't stop you from trying an experimental version of it or something, though. If you wanted to try it out, I'm sure Matt can help you out. (I don't think I have any of that code, or if I do, I'm sure it's very old.)
That doesn't sound like a bad idea.
[Something in /proc/sys/afs...] would also get cleared on reboot and would need to be set again after the afs kernel module is loaded. So I'm not sure how much better that is for you.
Indeed. Upon closer inspection, I see that 'fs messages' can simply be set locally by the root user with no further authentication. With a simple script that's just as easy to change as some kenel module setting in /proc/sys/afs. Thus my immediate problem has been solved, albeit with a rather blunt instrument.
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).
Cheers, Jaap _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
