Subj : CVS commit src/sbbs3/nope
To   : Digital Man
From : Deuce
Date : Sun Dec 26 2004 01:26 am

  Re: CVS commit src/sbbs3/nope
  By: Digital Man to Deuce on Fri Dec 24 2004 23:02:00

 >  > NFS and the local file systems don't suppor
 >  > manditory locking, so you couldn't get a lock error opening files on them
 > 
 > Hmm... sure you can. If one thread has file open DENYNONE, I sure hope that
 > another thread or process running on the same system will be denied open
 > access.
 > 
 >  > As for being different than Linux, FreeBSD doesn't use the SMBFS that Lin
 >  > uses.
 > 
 > Oh. It's interesting that it exhibits some of the same flaws. Did they stem
 > from the same source at some point?

re: 1:  Nope.  advisory locking only, *nix has no DENY* stuff at all... all
file/record locking prevents is anyone else from getting a lock... not from
opening, reading, writing, etc.  The only way to get a lock-related error from
open() is if you use some non-standard extensions ie: In FreeBSD, you can use
the O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK flags... which get a lock during the open().

re: 2: I don't believe so, I think it was something BSD/OS donated... but the
problems in resolving quirks would probobly drive people to the same "fixes"
and it's not impossible that the BSD people have glanced at how Linux did it.

The biggest problem with locking between Win32 and *nix is that neither OS is
capable of everything the other OS can do.  Windows is missing support for the
braindead *nix record locking semantics, and *nix has no portable concept of
mandatory locking.  There are other differences too... basically, neither OSs
concept of locking of any kind is supported completely on the other.


---
 þ Synchronet þ ``Penguins make tasty snacks''

.