From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nhorman@redhat.com Subject: [RFC] implementing BSD style locks on NLM (flocks) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: <20050227192113.GA5778@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG" Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1D5TyD-0007VW-Lt for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:20:49 -0800 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.41) id 1D5TyC-0002hq-4U for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:20:49 -0800 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1RJKftJ014383 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:20:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-32.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j1RJKfK20176 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:20:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1RJLEfR005786 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:21:14 -0500 Received: (from nhorman@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j1RJLDjp005785 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:21:13 -0500 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey all- I was wondering, how much interest there might be in the addition of support for BSD style locks (flocks) over NLM. I was thinking that a bit c= ould be added to differentiate the two namespaces. Any thoughts appreciated. = =20 Regards, Neil --=20 /*************************************************** *Neil Horman *Software Engineer *Red Hat, Inc. *nhorman@redhat.com *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1 *http://pgp.mit.edu ***************************************************/ --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCIh2pM+bEoZKnT6ERAoM1AJ470ZrdSAsKJ/2eWdvHzkgV17nQFwCeN9TV RNy6W21StR+7UrCNn2D1AU8= =eVpr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG-- ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs