Merge brlock.tdb and locking.tdb

[Ralph Böhme]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:14:47AM -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 08:39:02PM +0100, Volker Lendecke via samba-technical wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 06:25:54PM +0100, David Disseldorp via samba-technical wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:29:08 +0100, Ralph Böhme via samba-technical wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Unless I'm missing something, the record key is the same, we could add the brl data
> > > > to the struct share_mode_data IDL definition and update the brlock code to use a
> > > > different backing store.
> > > > 
> > > > This consolidation could be helpful in the implementation of a persistent
> > > > handles backing store.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyone?
> > > 
> > > Sounds like a good idea to me. 
> > 
> > One argument for keeping brlock.tdb is the fact that we might have to
> > read it MUCH more often to implement mandatory byte range
> > locking. You don't want to parse a potentially large and complex
> > locking.tdb record for every read or write request.
> 
> Yep, that's the issue. That's why the byte range lock
> data was originally kept separate from the open file
> data.

yeah, I was afraid that would be the reason. On the downside, by using seperate
dbs we have do the update-num-read-oplocks mumbo-jumbo, but I guess that's still
less overhead then unpacking a locking.tdb record for the mandatory brls. Hmpf.

Thanks!
-slow

-- 
Ralph Boehme, Samba Team       https://samba.org/
Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH   https://sernet.de/en/samba/