Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 03:28:27 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Cyrille Lefevre <clefevre-lists@9online.fr> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interoperation of flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3) Message-ID: <20040517232827.GD27584@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <042601c43a6b$cd1cb9a0$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> References: <20040515092114.GB67531@comp.chem.msu.su> <042601c43a6b$cd1cb9a0$7890a8c0@dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 01:00:13PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > "Yar Tikhiy" <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> wrote: > [snip] > > Considering all the above, I'd like to add the following paragraph > > to the flock(2), lockf(3), and fcntl(2) man pages (replacing the > > sentence quoted from lockf(3)): > > > > The flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3) locks are compatible. > > Processes using different locking interfaces can cooperate > > over the same file safely. However, only one of such > > interfaces should be used within a process. If a file is > > s/a process/the same process/ ? Agreed, thanks! BTW, since no objections were raised and Kirk encouraged me to make the change (thank you Kirk!), I just did so. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040517232827.GD27584>