From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov  5 00:16:09 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC5C16A4CE
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  5 Nov 2004 00:16:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from segfault-outgoing-helo.monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com
	[66.60.159.24])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C720143D1F
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  5 Nov 2004 00:16:08 +0000 (GMT)	(envelope-from rfg@monkeys.com)
Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A35054A8;
	Thu,  4 Nov 2004 16:16:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Henrik W Lund <henrik.w.lund@broadpark.no>
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:03:40 +0100.
             <418A992C.6040806@broadpark.no> 
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:16:08 -0800
Message-ID: <50176.1099613768@monkeys.com>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Trying to understand flock() 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:16:09 -0000


In message <418A992C.6040806@broadpark.no>, you wrote:

> From the flock manpage:
>
>"...file descriptors duplicated through dup(2) or fork(2) do not result 
>in multiple instances of a lock, but rather multiple references to the 
>same lock."
>
>You're basically trying to place a lock you already hold, making the 
>flock function return immediately (this is what I gather, anyhow). The 
>fcntl function seems to operate slightly differently in this respect.
>
>This is the only explanation I can think of, others might think 
>differently, though.


Thank you.  That seems to make sense, now that you have explained it
for me.