} Aarrgghh!! In that case, it would appear that Linux NFS is not behaving
} the same as NFS does on other systems, and is being particularly remiss
} in its emulation of a local Unix filing system.
Linux NFS in 2.0.x kernels has much more agressive caching than before.
It looks like that caching is broken.
} Be warned that your patch is disastrous. The whole point of checking the
} number of links is to ensure that one and only one process has created
} the lock file. Without that check the whole point of the algorithm is
} lost; you are not getting any interlocking between processes.
Definitely.
Something that has struck me is that pine will also be completely non
functional if attempting writes on an NFS filesystem, and I haven't heard
reports of this. It might be worth chechking the pine FAQs, the latest
sources, and whether there are any Linux specific patches (try the Red Hat
source RPM in particular).
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel.Metheringham@??? - Unix Applications Engineer ]
[ *Views expressed here are personal and not supported by PLAnet* ]
[ PLAnet Online : The White House Tel : +44 113 251 6012 ]
[ Melbourne Street, Leeds LS2 7PS UK. Fax : +44 113 2345656 ]
[Q: You know when you run sendmail.... A: No, you DELETE sendmail]
