open_file_shared()

[Andrew Tridgell]

> That's a pretty strange design though. Once a client has closed a
> file it really should ensure an update on the server (IMHO).

ahh, thats the whole point of batch oplocks. 

> The idea of keeping oplocks across file open/closes just "in
> case" the file will be opened again is rather risky (IMHO).
> This is one of the things I don't like about Windows oplocks.

I've grown to like it. It is a great idea when you are doing things
like compiling on a network drive, it means the 2nd compile is
_really_ fast.