Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ima.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!ima!johnl
From: johnl@ima.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.database
Subject: Re: Re: John Bass locking?
Message-ID: <121200007@ima.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 21:58:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ima.121200007
Posted: Mon Oct 14 21:58:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:35:04 EDT
References: <342@luke.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:luke:-34200:ima:121200007:000:784
Nf-From: ima!johnl    Oct 14 21:58:00 1985


John Bass' locking scheme went into the /usr/group standard for section II 
and III calls.  /usr/group being a committee, they couldn't leave well 
enough alone, so they fiddled with the definition just a little.  The last 
time I checked, they were proposing that if the set-group-id bit is set on a 
file but none of the execute bits are, then record locks on that file block 
read and write calls as well as other locking calls.  What a crock!  

Bass' original proposal, though, is perfectly fine for what it tries to do,
and he was nice enough to give away source code for his kernel implementation
of it.

John Levine, ima!johnl

The opinions above are solely those of a 12 year old hacker who has broken
into my account, and not those of my employer or any other organization.