From 5e3b923124e82b1d19875746676df13cfdb0f918 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jeremy Allison Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:28:19 +0000 Subject: include/smb_macros.h: Don't round up an allocation if the size is zero. "One of these locks is not like the others... One of these locks is not quite the same" :-). When is a zero timeout lock not zero ? When it's being processed by Windows 2000 of course.. This code change, ugly though it is - completely fixes the foxpro/access multi-user file system database problems that people have been having. I used a *wonderful* test program donated by "Gerald Drouillard" which allowed me to completely reproduce this problem, and to finally determine the correct fix. This also explains why Windows 2000 is *so slow* when responding to the smbtorture lock tests. I *love* it when all these things come together and finally make sense :-). Jeremy. (This used to be commit 8aa9860ea2ea7f5aed4b6aa12794fffdfa81b0d0) --- source3/locking/locking.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'source3/locking') diff --git a/source3/locking/locking.c b/source3/locking/locking.c index dd6ca62e70..8f3e4a278e 100644 --- a/source3/locking/locking.c +++ b/source3/locking/locking.c @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ BOOL is_locked(files_struct *fsp,connection_struct *conn, Utility function called by locking requests. ****************************************************************************/ -NTSTATUS do_lock(files_struct *fsp,connection_struct *conn, uint16 lock_pid, +static NTSTATUS do_lock(files_struct *fsp,connection_struct *conn, uint16 lock_pid, SMB_BIG_UINT count,SMB_BIG_UINT offset,enum brl_type lock_type) { NTSTATUS status; @@ -141,6 +141,30 @@ NTSTATUS do_lock(files_struct *fsp,connection_struct *conn, uint16 lock_pid, return status; } +/**************************************************************************** + Utility function called by locking requests. This is *DISGISTING*. It also + appears to be "What Windows Does" (tm). Andrew, ever wonder why Windows 2000 + is so slow on the locking tests...... ? This is the reason. Much though I hate + it, we need this. JRA. +****************************************************************************/ + +NTSTATUS do_lock_spin(files_struct *fsp,connection_struct *conn, uint16 lock_pid, + SMB_BIG_UINT count,SMB_BIG_UINT offset,enum brl_type lock_type) +{ + int j, maxj = lp_lock_spin_count(); + int sleeptime = lp_lock_sleep_time(); + NTSTATUS status; + + for (j = 0; j < maxj; j++) { + status = do_lock(fsp, conn, lock_pid, count, offset, lock_type); + if (!NT_STATUS_EQUAL(status, NT_STATUS_LOCK_NOT_GRANTED) && + !NT_STATUS_EQUAL(status, NT_STATUS_FILE_LOCK_CONFLICT)) + break; + usleep(sleeptime); + } + return status; +} + /**************************************************************************** Utility function called by unlocking requests. ****************************************************************************/ -- cgit