[PATCH][SAMBA3] use implicit oplocks to allow write caching

[Jeremy Allison]

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:09:57AM +1000, James Peach wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:43 am, James Peach wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 16:23 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:35:19AM +1100, James Peach wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > The attached patch introduces a new IMPLICIT_OPLOCK modifier to standard
> > > > exclusive oplocks. The purpose of this is to allow write caching support
> > > > in the presence of CIFS clients that do not use oplocks.
> > > > 
> > > > An implicit oplock is an exclusive oplock that is taken without the
> > > > knowledge of the CIFS client. This means that when the oplock is broken,
> > > > the client must not be notified. Other than that, there is no change to
> > > > either the oplock implementation or semantics.
> > > > 
> > > > Any a write cache that was established while an exclusive oplock was
> > > > if force is removed once the oplock is broken.
> > > > 
> > > > Jeremy and Volker, can you please cast an eye over this?
> > > 
> > > Ok, don't check this in yet please. I need to look over the implications
> > > of adding a new type flag into the share mode db. The last oplock logic
> > > bug was due to all possible type flags not being checked, so I really
> > > want to invesitgate all the places we go over the entries first.
> > > 
> > > Give me a few days....
> > 
> > No problemo
> 
> Jeremy, do you still want me to hold off with this? It passes the most
> recent Samba4 smbtorture oplock tests ...

Can you send me another diff against the latest SAMBA_3_0 source
tree so I can re-examine it against the latest changes please ?

Thanks,

	Jeremy.