Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:42:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au (Stephen McKay) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, syssgm@devetir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: fcntl F_SETLK backward compatibility kludge Message-ID: <199504171243.OAA06482@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199504170831.SAA27341@orion.devetir.qld.gov.au> from "Stephen McKay" at Apr 17, 95 06:31:35 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Stephen McKay wrote: > > I have scanned the 2.0 source code for uses of fcntl() locking and have found > four cases. "amd", "vi", and "sendmail" use fcntl() locking to simulate > flock() locking if that is unavailable. "at" uses fcntl() locking, but only > with full file locking (whence = 0, start = 0, end = 0) which is correctly > detected by the above scheme. It seems likely that most uses of fcntl() > locking are to simulate flock(), and will be correctly handled. Elm was also using this (config-dependant, but it suggested to use fcntl, flock and lock files alltogether by default). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ 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?199504171243.OAA06482>