Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 13:00:13 +0200 From: "Cyrille Lefevre" <clefevre-lists@9online.fr> To: "Yar Tikhiy" <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, <arch@freebsd.org>, <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Interoperation of flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3) Message-ID: <042601c43a6b$cd1cb9a0$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> References: <20040515092114.GB67531@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Yar Tikhiy" <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> wrote: [snip] > Considering all the above, I'd like to add the following paragraph > to the flock(2), lockf(3), and fcntl(2) man pages (replacing the > sentence quoted from lockf(3)): > > The flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3) locks are compatible. > Processes using different locking interfaces can cooperate > over the same file safely. However, only one of such > interfaces should be used within a process. If a file is s/a process/the same process/ ? > locked by a process through flock(2), any record within the > file will be seen as locked from the viewpoint of another > process using fcntl(2) or lockf(3), and vice versa. Cyrille Lefevre. -- home: mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?042601c43a6b$cd1cb9a0$7890a8c0>