Subject: Interesting behavior while testing locking code on the mac...

From: "Jonathan Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:28:25 -0700

While testing some code on my mac that deals with file locking, I ran across
an interesting behavior.  If I have locked a range with PBLockRange (mac
system call), and then unlock the same range twice with two calls to
PBUnlockRange, I lose the connection to the netatalk server.  The connection
is immediately dropped, and I get this in the logs:

Jun 20 12:12:58 monet afpd[6331]: server_child[1] 14732 killed

When I have more time, I will look into on the server side of things.  This
may be an explanation for the strange disconnects people have been seeing
from time to time.  The wrong error code ends up being returned from the
unlock function aspSessClosed (-1072) instead of afpRangeNotLocked (-5020),
and the volume is unmounted.

FYI, this is on asun2.1.4-37 and a mac running OS 8.6.

Jon Newman

---

From: Dejan Muhamedagic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:57:10 +0200

Hi,

> FYI, this is on asun2.1.4-37 and a mac running OS 8.6.

Did you try this on 2.1.4-39?  I can vaguely recall that some
apps used to release locks twice and that this has been taken care
of subsequently.  Also, the netatalk version you are using, was it
compiled with byte level locking?

Cheers!

Dejan

---

From: "Jonathan Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:02:57 -0700

> compiled with byte level locking?

Thanks.  39 does solve this problem.  Sorry for the noise.  I remember
having some issues with 39 when it came out, but I'll give it a try again.
The problems may have just been a case of PEBCAK.

Jon

---

From: "Jonathan Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:53:55 -0700

> The problems may have just been a case of PEBCAK.

It looks like the problems with 39 are more than just user error.  I got one
of these today in the logs.  I never got these with 37.

Jun 26 13:33:24 monet afpd[20561]: WARNING: DID conflict for 'Bauhaus (87)'
and 'Voquette_html'. Are these the same file?

I don't know if this warning is something to be worried about.  On the face,
it seems bad.  Has anyone else seen it?

Jon Newman