Oplock implementation - Is it correct??
winfij at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 13 12:32:59 GMT 2000
I've just been reviewing the (old) draft SMB spec and noticed a line in the
exclusive oplock description section that made me think, so I checked the
2.0.6 source code.
The sentences in question read:
If, at some point in the future, another client, such as client B, requests
an open of the same file, or requests a path name based operation on the
file, then the server MUST tell client A to relinquish its exclusive oplock.
If client B's request will not modify the state of the file, the server MAY
tell client A that its exclusive oplock has been replaced by a level II
The interesting part is the mention of the requirement to break an oplock if
another client performs a path name based operation on a file oplocked by
I checked the implementation of the call_trans2setfilepathinfo function and
could find no mention of breaking oplocks. This call could potentially
truncate the file another client has oplocked and cached locally, correct??
I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on this. I may be barking up the
wrong tree here....
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the samba-technical