Oplock bug?

[Jeremy Allison]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:59:57PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 12:44:58PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > Ok, looking closely at this - you ran into one of my paranoia
> > defenses when I was creating the original code. There is no
> > real reason to keep an independent count of the number of
> > outstanding oplocks - only paranoia to ensure the numbers
> > match. We could just ignore that test and debug statement
> > and always call oplock_break(), which would return True
> > on not finding the oplock - then return the message 
> > and the logic would look much simpler.
> 
> Hmmmm. Sorry...
> 
> But then the comment is really a bit misleading :-)

Yes indeed. I'm looking forward to critisizing your
message-based oplock implementation, then the boot will
be on the other foot :-). Thanks for catching this though,
I hadn't and we'd have shipped with it if you hadn't
been so careful.

Jeremy.