On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:59:09AM -0700, Manoj Dahal wrote:
** Low Priority **
Hi,
I have made the changes suggested by Stefan. The patch is available at
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8760#c6.
Please send your review comments.
Please see my further comment patch
** Low Priority **
Hi,
I have made the changes suggested by Stefan. The patch is available at
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8760#c6.
Please send your review comments.
Thanks,
-Manoj
Manoj Dahal 2/13/2012 5:00 PM
Hi Volker/Stefan,
As per this discussion I have created a
** Low Priority **
Hi Volker/Stefan,
As per this discussion I have created a bug#8760 and I have attached
a patch for the proposed fix in
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8760#c3.
Is it possible for you to review the changes and give comments? When tested
with the changes
I have
** Low Priority **
Volker,
In that case, which library/binary (and rpm) is responsible for wiping out the
share mode entries if the PID is not registered in server.tdb? And in what
scenario
will this happen? I was trying to reproduce this with Samba running and I still
see
my share mode
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 02:17:33AM -0700, Manoj Dahal wrote:
In that case, which library/binary (and rpm) is responsible for wiping out the
share mode entries if the PID is not registered in server.tdb? And in what
scenario
will this happen? I was trying to reproduce this with Samba running
** Low Priority **
Hi Volker/Stefan,
This seems to be good for us for the time being.
What should we assume the value of UINT64_MAX, 0x or
0x7FFF ?
And the question is how soon the don't verify this unique id code can be
added in smbd if unique_id is UINT64_MAX?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:57:55AM -0700, Manoj Dahal wrote:
This seems to be good for us for the time being. What
should we assume the value of UINT64_MAX,
0x or 0x7FFF ?
And the question is how soon the don't verify this unique
id code can be added in smbd if
Hi!
Sure it can be modified to do that. What part of the last
mail I sent needs clarification? The non-clustered version
is relatively minor work, serverid.c is pretty trivial.
Adding the clustered version is definitely more work.
If you need any specific guidance to write a clean-room lgpl
** Low Priority **
Hi Volker,
This is regarding your fix on recycled PIDs. I am an NCP developer from Novell
and we use libsmbsharemodes library
from Samba for Cross Protocols Locks between NCP, Samba and others. I have few
queries regarding your fix.
In your fix, you have added a new field
** Low Priority **
Hi Volker,
Thanks a lot for your response. I have some more doubts.
What is the issue with libsmbsharemodes to make it cluster aware?
If the serverid is included in libsmbsharemodes without the dbwrap for
clustering,
I believe without the *_ctdb() calls and without the
** Low Priority **
Hi Volker,
Thanks a lot again. Is it possible for you to let us know the other
authors/contributors
of serverid.c ? So that we can obtain their approval as well.
Regards,
-Manoj
Volker Lendecke volker.lende...@sernet.de 1/24/2012 2:36 PM
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at
** Low Priority **
Hi Volker,
An alternate thought came into mind.
Is it possible for you or someone from Samba to write a simpler serverid.c code
without cluster support?
Which can possibly be bundled in a new library or in libsmbsharemodes.so under
LGPL.
So that it will have lesser
Adding my thoughts to this.
Basically the smbsharedmodes manner of working, as of now, will not work for
any other service/protocol provider to have shared locking semantics with SAMBA
(unless they are GPLv3 themselves). As without registering the unique ID, any
other service that wants to
** Low Priority **
Hi Volker,
For the time being trivial one will be good enough, provided the patch will be
accepted in the upstream
and it works well with existing code.
Moving forward we can think of having cluster support as well.
Appreciate your continuos support on the issue.
Hi Manoj,
This is regarding your fix on recycled PIDs. I am an NCP developer from
Novell and we use libsmbsharemodes library
from Samba for Cross Protocols Locks between NCP, Samba and others. I have
few queries regarding your fix.
In your fix, you have added a new field called
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:47:58PM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
Hi Manoj,
This is regarding your fix on recycled PIDs. I am an NCP developer from
Novell and we use libsmbsharemodes library
from Samba for Cross Protocols Locks between NCP, Samba and others. I have
few
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:19:14AM -0700, Manoj Dahal wrote:
Thanks a lot for your response. I have some more doubts.
What is the issue with libsmbsharemodes to make it cluster aware?
It's licensing. The cluster code is a significant piece of
GPLv3+ code that has had contributions from many
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:31:59AM -0700, Manoj Dahal wrote:
Thanks a lot again. Is it possible for you to let us know
the other authors/contributors
of serverid.c ? So that we can obtain their approval as well.
You can find them with git log serverid.c.
With best regards,
Volker Lendecke
Hello!
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 04:38:21AM -0700, Manoj Dahal wrote:
This is regarding your fix on recycled PIDs. I am an NCP
developer from Novell and we use libsmbsharemodes library
from Samba for Cross Protocols Locks between NCP, Samba
and others. I have few queries regarding your fix.
19 matches
Mail list logo
