Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

["Tomasz Mikolajczyk" <miksiu@gmail.com>]

On Dec 13, 2007 11:52 AM, Mehmet Ersue <m_ersue@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > a) A partial lock after a global lock MUST fail.
> > > > b) A global lock after a partial lock SHOULD be allowed.
> > >
> > > I don't agree with the point a). In the case when a session A wants to
> > > lock (partial lock) /foo/bar and /foo/baz, it can execute the global
> > > lock first to protect against the situation, when during partial
> > > locking /foo/bar another session (B) would lock partially /foo/baz. It
> > > means that after the following steps:
> > > 1) global lock
> > > 2) partial lock of /foo/bar
> > > 3) partial lock of /foo/baz
> > > 4) global unlock
> > > session A keeps lock on /foo/bar and /foo/baz.
> >
> > This particular use case is actually handled in the current draft by
> > doing a single operation:
> >
> >   partial-lock(/foo/bar, /foo/baz)
>
> I agree, this is the atomic way to partial lock two areas at once. Three
> lock operations before we can be sure the session can start working
> (global lock, partial lock of /foo/bar, partial lock of /foo/baz) wouldn't
> be efficient.
>
> Mehmet


Assuming that partial locks on a few resources is an atomic operation,
we don't have to worry about situation described by me.

Regards
Tomasz

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>