Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 20:47:02 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bug: is it the kernel or the man page? Message-ID: <19970506204702.SL03519@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199705061817.LAA18955@phaeton.artisoft.com>; from Terry Lambert on May 6, 1997 11:17:34 -0700 References: <19970506080539.EO65418@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199705061817.LAA18955@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Terry Lambert wrote: > Well, I was actually thinking along the lines of: > > fcntl( fd, F_SETLK | F_NONPOSIX, &flock); This doesn't look too gross. > I also want to support mandatory file locking: if the file is SGID > *and* the group execute bit is not set, the file would not be allowed > to be mmap'ed, and a flag would be set duirng the open to indicate > mandory locking was in effect. I think that's quite a large change to the code base. I've read enough argumentations that mandatory file locking is basically useless... so i won't go into any discussion here. > > There are other people capable of fixing man pages as well. I think > > the only change by now should be to add a hint to fcntl-style locking > > to close(2). > > This is exactly the man page fix I want. So i've filed a PR on your behalf for this. :) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970506204702.SL03519>