Samba oplock level II problem

Jeremy Allison jra at
Fri Feb 4 15:37:06 MST 2011

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 11:11:54PM +0300, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:

> I think you missed new byte-range locking part.

Yes you are correct.

> Now we may have the
> following situation:
> 1) f1 = open(file) # exclusive oplock is granted to f1
> 2) lock(f1) # set byte-range lock via f1
> 3) f2 = open(file) # f1 gets oplock break with level2 but no oplock is
> granted to f2 (because lock count more 0) - we have 'no oplock' for f2
> and 'level2' oplock for f1 in share mode entries

Ah, that's a bug in your original patch then - it's
refusing the oplock in the wrong place (or at least
not forcing an overall downgrade). We need to
make sure we can't have that situation where the no_oplock
and level2 oplock co-exist in the share mode entries without
it being in a transitional stage to "no oplock" over all

I'll take a closer look at the underlying issue.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list