Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:31:48 +0200 From: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Periodic jobs lockf timeout Message-ID: <D12E3AF6-9842-4B64-8E60-29748E519DBE@sarenet.es> In-Reply-To: <1508858729.34364.32.camel@freebsd.org> References: <AEF2CF7D-BFAC-4ACE-95F2-EF5026E89959@sarenet.es> <CAOtMX2hb_Ur8XtTdoPju3ZQGMfJ_pApUKsZiaocxaG9n%2BDVycA@mail.gmail.com> <EAE33C61-BC70-4A09-86A0-0C5F62D993ED@sarenet.es> <1508858729.34364.32.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 24 Oct 2017, at 17:25, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > No, lockf -t 0 means to exit without waiting, with status EX_TEMPFAIL, > if the lock cannot be acquired immediately. In light of that, the = rest > of your report/request doesn't make sense. Jobs won't stack up, > they'll fail if the prior one is still running. True! Then I don=E2=80=99t understand what happened. When I saw several = processes waiting I assumed it was an unlimited wait.=20 My apologies, I need to look into it more closely. Borja.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D12E3AF6-9842-4B64-8E60-29748E519DBE>