From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Nov 3 15:37:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns2.infologigruppen.se (ns2.infologigruppen.se [212.214.163.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863A11510E for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:37:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Goran.Lowkrantz@infologigruppen.se) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ns2.infologigruppen.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13964 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:37:16 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Goran.Lowkrantz@infologigruppen.se) Received: from valhall.ign.se(192.168.3.1) via SMTP by bifrost-net.ign.se, id smtpdm13962; Thu Nov 4 00:37:14 1999 Received: by valhall.ign.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:37:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Lowkrantz, Goran" To: "'stable@FreeBSD.ORG'" Subject: uu_lock semantics Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:37:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG System: 3.3-STABLE FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE #1: Wed Nov 3 06:36:59 CET 1999 Two questions about uu_lock that have surfaced during a test. 1- Should a second call to uu_lock for the same resource from the same process without a call to uu_unlock between them return "UU_LOCK_INUSE: The lock is in use by another process.", because that is what I get. 2- I assume that uu_lock should be called before first open and uu_unlock after last close, as open and close have no connection to the lock handling. Is this true? Regarding question 1, I understand why it should be so, but I think this could be documented on the man-page, as it's easy to assume recursive locks. Cheers, GLZ --- Goran Lowkrantz Email : goran.lowkrantz@infologigruppen.se Infologigruppen Alfa AB Telephone: Nat 070-587 8782 Fax: Nat 070-615 8782 Box 202 Int +46 70-587 8782 Int +46 70-615 8782 941 25 Pitea, Sweden To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message