Patchset to add asynchronous open/close to master

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Thu Jun 14 17:56:27 MDT 2012

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:12 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 08:31:55AM -0400, simo wrote:
> > 
> > Oh it is not only confusing but really wrong!
> > If you open directly you are assuming the fd is a *real* fd, but if the
> > share has otherwise a 'database backed file store' (like s3) then you
> > are going to get very weird behavior. Even more so if you open with the
> > database backend and then  try to close() directly.
> > That can't work.
> > 
> > So if those options are used you must dynamically change all calls on
> > that VFS layer from transparent to opaque and not pass onto next
> > anything anymore, nor open/close, nor read/writes, basically nothing.
> > It must be a full switch of behavior for all VFS calls.
> > 
> > This is one of the reasons this kind of 'minor feature' should not go in
> > 3.6, it has so many side effects it is not even funny.
> It's explicitly listed as a non-stackable module, and fixes
> issues that otherwise make Samba completely unusable in
> some circumstances.
> So yeah, OEMs want this in 3.6.x. If you don't like it you
> don't have to ship with it.


I'm really rather worried by your approach here.  What goes into 3.6 (or
indeed any release) is what we all put our names to, because we ship it
as the Samba Team.  

If you want to prepare a 3.6-backports branch in your git repo, you are
welcome to ship it yourself, but just suggesting an overriding of the
legitimate concerns of others about your approach, both technical and in
terms of release process is a dangerous road.

We have a set of rules, a process for handling release branches.  We
have not yet agreed to change them.  

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 

More information about the samba-technical mailing list