Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 11:24:58 +0000 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Subject: Re: Serious locking problem in CURRENT Message-ID: <19991107112458.A14670@walton.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <199911061929.NAA26145@free.pcs> References: <local.mail.freebsd-current/19991105225916.A14961@keltia.freenix.fr> <local.mail.freebsd-current/19991106005016.A865@keltia.freenix.fr> <local.mail.freebsd-current/19991106134548.A2921@walton.maths.tcd.ie> <199911061929.NAA26145@free.pcs>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 01:29:16PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > From the manual page for flock: > > NOTES > Locks are on files, not file descriptors. That is, file descriptors du- > plicated through dup(2) or fork(2) do not result in multiple instances of > a lock, but rather multiple references to a single lock. If a process > holding a lock on a file forks and the child explicitly unlocks the file, > the parent will lose its lock. Doesn't this make it impossible to hold a lock on a file when you want to fork a child to do some task 'cos the lock will be dropped when the child closes its copy of the file discriptor on exit? Either it's a posix goof or the lock shouldn't be let go until either explicitly released or the last instance of the file discriptor is closed? David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991107112458.A14670>