From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Apr 26 05:57:49 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id FAA22929
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 05:57:49 -0700
Received: from bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au (bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au [130.102.2.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA22923
          for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 05:57:48 -0700
Received: from cc.uq.oz.au by bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au 
          id <14282-0@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 22:57:15 +1000
Received: by pandora.devetir.qld.gov.au (8.6.10/DEVETIR-E0.3a) id WAA28305;
          Wed, 26 Apr 1995 22:16:15 +1000
From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au>
Message-Id: <199504261216.WAA28305@pandora.devetir.qld.gov.au>
To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
cc: syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au (Stephen McKay), current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: fcntl F_SETLK backward compatibility hack implemented
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 25 Apr 95 19:41:42. <9504260141.AA03577@cs.weber.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 22:16:13 EST
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) wrote:
>syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au (Stephen McKay) wrote:
>> Well, since nobody objected :-) I went and implemented my proposed fix to
>> fcntl locking.
>
>Coolness, Parker.  8-) 8-).

Pardon?  I'm hip and groovy, but who's Parker? :-(

>If you're still in the neighborhood, could you add a long of 'sysid'
>to the flock structure, pass 0 for the local machine, and use the number
>to preterb the pid hash and lookup and compare it where you compare
>the pid?
>
>You should force the sysid to 0 for the F_SETLK, F_SETLKW, and F_GETLK
>calls, and implement F_RSETLK, F_RSETLKW, and F_RGETLK, which fail
>for non-root users and respect the passed 'sysid' for root users?
>
>This would be a good step towards lockd support.

Well, stick my head out and have it run over by a bus!

Ok, if we add 'sysid' to struct flock it will change size and we'll need
more backward compatibility stuff in fcntl().  Looks like we'll need
flock_43 for the 1.1.5 version and flock_44 for the 2.0 version and a
slightly more complicated backward compatibility patch.

So, should we strike while the iron is hot?

>If it's too much of a pain, forget it and I'll probably hit it at some
>indefinite future date myself.

Now looks like the best time to me.

Stephen.