Re: Re: file locking

Eric Williams wrote:

> of note, locks may be placed beyond the current end-of-file offset.  thus,
> 
>         if (LargeIntegerLessThan(LOffset, scp->length))
>             continue;
> 
> is incorrect.  since this code is currently in place, there may be a
> temptation to leave it unaltered.  however, locks that start (or extend)
> beyond the end of the file are used for synchronization.
> 
> i know this is the case for IFS-received requests; SMB-encapsulated
> requests should not be different.
> 
> eric

This code is clearly wrong.   It is the second half of the code that
enforces "lock only when a full lock is applied".   The first half
enforces that the offset must be zero.

This code will be removed once cm_Lock / cm_Unlock are re-coded to
support ranges.

Jeffrey Altman