Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:53 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199806] Add a new option letter "l" to make fopen() use O_SHLOCK or O_EXLOCK when calling open() Message-ID: <bug-199806-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199806 Bug ID: 199806 Summary: Add a new option letter "l" to make fopen() use O_SHLOCK or O_EXLOCK when calling open() Product: Base System Version: 11.0-CURRENT Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: kern Assignee: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: jau@iki.fi Created attachment 156144 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=156144&action=edit A patch to add the proposed new option letter to fopen() This is a change proposal. Since FreeBSD already has the open() flags O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK it would make sense for the same feature to be also available when calling fopen(). So, I propose adding a new option letter "l" to force fopen() to add the suitable one of these locking flags when calling open(), O_SHLOCK for "r" and O_EXLOCK for "w", "r+", etc. Such an extension is of course non-standard, but when code portability is not a big issue such an extension would make FreeBSD specific code easier to read and write, and maybe also a bit more robust while avoiding the need to go the extra mille passum to call fileno() and flock() later. >From my point of view writing something like... fp = fopen("whateverfile", "wb+lex"); ... is a pretty neat idea. Either I get a handle to a completely new file with the exclusive lock applied, and it will not be left open after an exec*() call, or I get a NULL. Obviously the same change applies to 10.1 as well, if the merits of this idea are accepted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-199806-8>