From: Bill Ricker (Bill.Ricker@eng.sun.com)
Date: 02/08/01-01:27:47 PM Z
Message-ID: <3A82F333.A64EF488@Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:27:47 -0800
From: Bill Ricker <Bill.Ricker@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Formal proposal to add a type field to 'struct LOCK4denied'
"Noveck, Dave" wrote:
>
>
> > > It looks like we just made a mistake here. Let's say "Oops!" and fix
> it.
>
> > I agree, particularly since I think the fix will require a very minor
> > change, both in terms of changes to the spec and changes to existing
> > server implementations. I would like to make a "formal proposal" to
> > change the definition of 'struct LOCK4denied' in the protocol from
> >
> > struct LOCK4denied {
> > nfs_lockowner4 owner;
> > offset4 offset;
> > length4 length;
> > };
> >
> > to
> >
> > struct LOCK4denied {
> > nfs_lockowner4 owner;
> > offset4 offset;
> > length4 length;
> > nfs_lock_type4 locktype;
> > };
> >
> > for purposes of improving a POSIX client's ability to map the NFSv4 file
> > locking semantics to its own.
>
> Is there anybody that thinks we shouldn't do this?
Not I.
--
bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:48:35 AM Z CST