Fw: Re: Implemented OPLOCK for FreeBsd

[Jeremy Allison]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 05:32:50PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:

> After all, as an engineer, you _do_ want to write well-designed and implemented
> portable code, yes?  The same concept applies to supporting multiple
> architectures in an operating system to ensure your machine independent code is
> truly MI.  Well, you have an oplock abstraction, so your oplock using code
> should be oplock implementation independent.

It's not Samba I really care about here. It's other apps
who might want to use this interface who will now have to
choose between the Linux and FreeBSD flavours (and who
knows what Open/Net/BSDi/OSX will choose - maybe they'll
want to "do it their own technically correct way").

I'm trying to help FreeBSD here by encouraging a Linux
compatible interface. If you don't do this then your API
will be ignored by the vast majority of even Free Software
apps, let alone proprietary apps. IBM, HP and the other UNIX
vendors have learned the lesson you don't seem to get -
the UNIX/2002 API set will be "Linux" (as the VP of a large
proprietary UNIX vendor said to me very recently).

Jeremy.