Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 00:37:36 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: "Sameer R. Manek" <manek@ecst.csuchico.edu> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bug with lockf(3)? Message-ID: <199905070737.AAA17669@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 May 1999 22:31:35 PDT." <Pine.GHP.4.05.9905062228500.7884-100000@polio.ecst.csuchico.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I had posted this originally to freebsd-stable but didn't get any response
>from that list.
>
>On freebsd 3-1-stable I'm not sure if this is a bug or my misinterpetation
>of how lockf() works. But here's the situation.
>
>Given 2 processes A and B, both with open file descriptors to a file,
>using open ("file.txt",O_RDWR)
>A calls lockf (fd,F_LOCK,0) and proceeds to read/write to file
>while file is still locked....including using lseek to jump to the
>begining of the file
>B calls lockf (fd,F_LOCK,0) and enters blocked state
>A calls lockf (fd,F_ULOCK,0)
>B is still in blocked state, until A exit(3)s.
>
>According to the man page:
> F_LOCK and F_TLOCK requests differ only by the action taken if the
>section is not available. F_LOCK blocks the calling process until the
>section is available. F_TLOCK makes the function fail if the section is
>already locked by another process.
Does the same problem occur when using flock()?
-DG
David Greenman
Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org
Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905070737.AAA17669>