Samba 3.0.32 - oplock code

[Jeremy Allison]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Itay Dar wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> We are working on a cluster, so if the process will die in the middle of
> the change phase you are proposing, a state corruption will occur.
> So this makes life hard on us, as we need to start working with
> transactions (I think the ctdb project will have the same issues, but I
> am not sure, I plan to look on it also)

Well if smbd dies inside any number of places
then state corruption occurs. I'm not sure that
is a deal-breaker. How likely is this problem
to occur ?

> I was thinking on just marking the breaker entry as downgrade one and
> than sending a notify to all.  
> And checking In open code path if this is a downgraded one, I am testing
> this change and it seems to work (but I had to touch lot of files)
> I am giving it a bit more qa time before posting.

That's quite a change. I'm not sure I'd be happy with
that. I hate new flags/states inside the share mode
code, we already have too many for people to understand.

> An alternative was to break to the client (or just remove the fake
> oplock ) under the lock and than send notify to everyone else, this will
> do the same trick.

This sounds simpler to me, but I need to understand the
logic completely before I'll say "ok" on that one.

You've obviously been thinking about this for a long time,
I'll have to context switch all this back into my head before
I comment fully :-).

Thanks,

Jeremy.