I can't completely agree with this. I'd like to presrve Clunk semantics but it leads to all sorts of deadlocks. That's why "slay" was introduced, and "closefiles" (or whatever it's called).
Research Inferno has ha async clunks on 'M' for 15 years with no problems, just no deadlocks. Think about it a bit. brucee On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Charles Forsyth <fors...@terzarima.net> wrote: >>close must be synchronous, unless you aim for NFS semantics. > > to be more explicit: think of exclusive-use services, services that wait for > a close to commit, > files with DMEXCL, and files opened ORCLOSE > >
