From owner-freebsd-current Thu Dec 14 16:19:19 2000 From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 16:19:15 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B340437B400; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:19:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eBF0Id999356; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:18:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:18:39 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200012150018.eBF0Id999356@earth.backplane.com> To: "David E. Cross" Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Axel Thimm , Carsten Urbach , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, crossd@cs.rpi.edu Subject: Re: rpc.lockd and true NFS locks? References: <200012142334.SAA70797@cs.rpi.edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :I'm not going to take such an action w/o the blessing of -core. :) : :-- :David Cross | email: crossd@cs.rpi.edu :Lab Director | Rm: 308 Lally Hall In regards to Jordan's message just a moment ago... you know, I *total* forgot that the BSDI working lockd code was now available. On the otherhand I know that Dave and a lot of people spent a lot of hard work on lockd, and also on the kernel-side implementation. If we were to use the BSDI code the kernel-side implementation would almost certainly be retained with only minor (if any) modification. But the experiemental lockd code would be completely replaced. David, how do you feel about that potentially occuring? Would you like to make a go of it with the BSDI lockd code on builder? -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message