From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 30 23:21:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA11703 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA11690 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA26580; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:21:10 -0700 (PDT) To: Sebastian Lederer cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS V3 is it stable? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jul 1997 07:10:26 +0200." <33B89142.41C67EA6@bonn-online.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:21:09 -0700 Message-ID: <26576.867738069@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > What would be the requirements for this ? It does not seem too > complicated to me, at least the rpc.lockd framework is already in place. > So the "only" thing left to do would be to manage lists of locks from a > set of hosts and processes, probably merging adjacent locks etc, and > using the F_RSETLK fcntls to actually set the locks in the kernel. > Probably the interaction with rpc.statd would also need some attention. > Or am I grossly missing something? No, that sounds about right (without giving it a lot of thought - what happens on locker death, for example? I'm sure once you actually start in on this, you will find lots of amusing corner cases. :-). > If not, then I could probably spend some time to work on this, if nobody > else is already doing it. That would be great! Many would be those who would kiss your feet for doing such a thing. :-) Jordan