Svante Signell, le dim. 18 nov. 2018 13:44:40 +0100, a ecrit: > On Sun, 2018-11-18 at 01:13 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > I don't remember the discussion which refused this solution. I guess > > your working solution is to implement the record-lock in trivfs > > itself? It sort of makes sense to me actually: the data of the > > underlying node and the data of the node exposed by the translator > > are not really related, I don't see why we should necessarily proxy > > the lock. Apparently the only parts which are proxied are file access > > permissions and time, i.e. information of the inode itself. > > Do you say that you are suddenly interested in the proposal I made in > 2016?
Well, yes? > That proposal was completely dismissed by Justus by then! Was that discussed on this list? Samuel
