summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/python
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>2014-07-07 11:00:13 -0700
committerAndreas Schneider <asn@cryptomilk.org>2014-07-08 10:16:59 +0200
commitc324b9f03f85d724dfde8e85f08d5f20fa2796ac (patch)
tree557351bb59e77896ffc4fb48a2f00eeef25c38e2 /python
parentc6baacd7f0b798692dba2af9a02fe9de67bb73f8 (diff)
downloadsamba-c324b9f03f85d724dfde8e85f08d5f20fa2796ac.tar.gz
samba-c324b9f03f85d724dfde8e85f08d5f20fa2796ac.tar.xz
samba-c324b9f03f85d724dfde8e85f08d5f20fa2796ac.zip
s4: torture: Add a new lock test to show that the Samba SMB1 multi-lock implementation is (currently) correct.
Needed as there was a proposal to re-architect our multi-lock to dispense with lock order precedence, which isn't how Windows does it (unfortunately, as the new code would have been cleaner :-). Tested against the Win2k12 SMB1 implementation. This test is designed to show that lock precedence on the server is based on the order received, not on the ability to grant. For example: A blocked lock request containing 2 locks will be satified before a subsequent blocked lock request over one of the same regions, even if that region is then unlocked. E.g. (a) lock 100->109, 120->129 (granted) (b) lock 100->109, 120-129 (blocks) (c) lock 100->109 (blocks) (d) unlock 100->109 lock (c) will not be granted as lock (b) will take precedence. Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org> Autobuild-User(master): Andreas Schneider <asn@cryptomilk.org> Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Jul 8 10:16:59 CEST 2014 on sn-devel-104
Diffstat (limited to 'python')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions