On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:46:28 +0200 Jaap Winius <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). Hmm, I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. Any changes to 'fs messages' would be _instead of_ a sysctl or an afsd option. I'm leaning towards a sysctl, though. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
