Fw: Re: Implemented OPLOCK for FreeBsd

[Jeremy Allison]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 04:23:46PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote:

> I do not think that we should be bound by this.  In fact, you could
> argue that IRIX got there first, and that Linux should be adopting 
> the IRIX API.  

Except that the IRIX API isn't very good (my fault) and
Linus refused to accept it. He helped us design a much
cleaner interface which is of more generic use than just Samba.

> The problem with the Linux API is that it provides no means of 
> backchanneling the information back to the application, other 
> than siginfo, which essentially forces you to use that model whether
> you want to or not.

The siginfo model is much cleaner than the arbitrary pipe
backchannel approach.

> I'm not sure this is relevant to the Samba guys anyway, since they
> have an abstracted model of the oplocks, in which the kqueue approach
> will simply drop right into.

Except that we really don't want to add to this abstraction
layer. We have a decent API - the Linux based one. Why not
provide a FreeBSD implementation of the same ?

It's the same API than an NFSv4 server would use. I don't want
the FreeBSD developers to punt this issue by saying "Samba will
handle all the underlying UNIX incompatibilities". I don't want
Samba to have to do that. What's wrong with adopting the Linux
API as a standard ? I don't see a good technical reason not to
do that, given that POSIX realtime signal handling with the added
data argument is a POSIX standard already that you will have to
support in FreeBSD.

Jeremy.