kernel oplocks 2.2.1a

ian j hart ianjhart at ntlworld.com
Sun Sep 16 17:44:03 GMT 2001


Gerald Carter wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, ian j hart wrote:
> 
> > =>    This parameter defaults to on on systems that have the
> >       support, and off on systems that don't. You should never
> >       need to touch this parameter.
> >
> >       See also the oplocks and level2 oplocks parameters.
> >
> > =>?   Default: kernel oplocks = yes
> > </quote>
> >
> > Defaults to yes, but we (FreeBSD) don't have this feature (yet).
> 
> Doesn't matter.  If the kernel doesn't support the feature,
> the resulting code in Samba (to support kernel oplocks)
> becomes a no op.  I will up date the man page next week.

I know, I looked at the code. But, having correct documentation does
matter.

The point is that the two statements above are contradictory, and if
the first is true then the default value for FreeBSD is wrong. I was
trying to narrow down a problem with locking. There are 7 options
(since level2 oplocks requires oplocks). That's a lot of permutations.
Removing an option which does nothing saves time and effort.

Since the documentation comes in many formats, you may find it
easier to just change the default value for FreeBSD in smb.conf.default.

Or:-
Replace "This parameter defaults to on on systems that have the support,
and off on systems that don't."
With "Ignored by systems that don't have kernel oplock support"

This will save some maintainance time.

> 
> cheers, jerry
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  www.samba.org              SAMBA Team              jerry_at_samba.org
>  www.plainjoe.org                                jerry_at_plainjoe.org
>  --"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca--

-- 
ian j hart




More information about the samba mailing list