Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> Now I'm suspicious about the following code in LockResolveConflicts().
>
> /*
> * We can control runtime this option. Default is lockReadPriority=0
> */
> if (!lockReadPriority)
> {
> /* ------------------------
> * If someone with a greater priority is waiting for the
> lock,
> * do not continue and share the lock, even if we can. bjm
> * ------------------------
You're right Hiroshi - this must be changed:
if we already have some lock with priority X and new requested
lock has priority Y, Y <= X, then lock must be granted.
Also, I would get rid of lockReadPriority stuff...
Bruce, what do you think?
Vadim