From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov 14 06:24:53 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id GAA02162
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:24:53 -0800
Received: from dtr.com (dtr.rain.com [204.119.8.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA02154
          ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:24:49 -0800
From: bmk@dtr.com
Received: (from bmk@localhost) by dtr.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAA11536; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:19:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199511141419.GAA11536@dtr.com>
Subject: Re: elm problem :)
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:19:42 -0800 (PST)
Cc: bmk@dtr.com, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, geoff@ginsu.com,
        bsd@ee.petra.ac.id, questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199511140727.IAA00168@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Nov 14, 95 08:27:34 am
Reply-To: bmk@dtr.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 605       
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


> As bmk@dtr.com wrote:
> > 
> >   I've always had to use flock style locking
> > - fcntl always seemed to cause the symptoms the original complaint
> > described.

> That's quite surprising since both functions share a rather large part
> of their implementation inside the kernel.  flock() is basically an
> fcntl-style lock spanning the entire file:

[snip]

Tell me about it. :)

At the time (this was under a 1.1 system, BTW), I didn't know enough for
this to really bother me.  Now that I know better, I might just
investigate it further.

Perhaps there's something buggy with how elm uses fcntl?