From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jan  4 17:43:45 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id RAA06802 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:43:45 -0800
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.223.46]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA06796 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:43:45 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA01661; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:42:39 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: time.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, j@uriah.sax.de
Subject: Re: Never mind on the "mcopy busy" 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jan 95 07:56:32 +1100."
             <199501042056.HAA04453@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 1995 17:42:34 -0800
Message-ID: <1660.789270154@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> >I've noticed that FreeBSD 2's flock() is binary incompatible with
> >FreeBSD 1.1.5's.  My older copy of elm refuses to work now under 2.0,
> >i get an `flock: invalid argument'.
> 
> `struct flock' starts with an off_t, so the struct is totally
> incompatible with the 1.1.5 version.

But...  Didn't the old version of flock() use a different syscall
number?  We should still be able to deal with the 32 bit off_t in
the old syscall..

					Jordan