[zack.kirsch@isilon.com: RE: [PATCH]: Windows BRL Try 2]

[Jeremy Allison]

Start of discussion....

Jeremy.
----- Forwarded message from Zack Kirsch <zack.kirsch at isilon.com> -----

Subject: RE: [PATCH]: Windows BRL Try 2
From: Zack Kirsch <zack.kirsch at isilon.com>
To: Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>

Thanks Jeremy!

While I've got you thinking about the BRL path, how would you feel about
this:

* A new BRL_LOCK_WINDOWS_ASYNC call, which would be called with the
PENDING lock type. In the lockingX case, the logic used to decide
whether or not to call push_blocking_lock_request() is very complicated.
Ideally, I'd like to call BRL_LOCK_WINDOWS_ASYNC if we're going okay
with performing an asynchronous request, but call BRL_LOCK_WINDOWS if
we're not. Do you have any ideas of how we could rectify the complicated
lockingX logic in with this?

Let me know if I need to explain this more - I'm in the middle of
tracing down a kernel panic. :)

-Zack

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jra at samba.org]
>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:33 AM
>> To: Zack Kirsch
>> Cc: Jeremy Allison; Samba Technical; Tim Prouty
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Windows BRL Try 2
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 05:09:04PM -0800, Zack Kirsch wrote:
>> > Hi Jeremy and tech,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Patches 2 & 3 here are updates to patches 1 & 2 from before.
Tprouty
>> (and
>> > metze) really wanted me to remove the struct blocking_lock_record
>> typedef, so I
>> > did that as patch #1. If you?ve already looked at my original
>> patches, then
>> > you?ll want to know that patches 2&3 have the following changes
from
>> my
>> > previous submission:
>> 
>> Ok, looks really good to me - thanks for the VFS additions and
>> refactoring. I've pushed to master !
>> 
>> Jeremy.

----- End forwarded message -----