Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:35:44 +0200 From: Admin Cyanide <admin@cyanide-studio.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lockf command Message-ID: <4DA5B4C0.3060402@cyanide-studio.com> In-Reply-To: <4DA5A3B5.4080302@gmx.com> References: <4DA56819.90503@cyanide-studio.com> <4DA5A3B5.4080302@gmx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Nikos, I was stupid not to think about this... And it is a nice tip to use a new shell as a running process. However, I re-read the lockf man and saw : "By default, lockf waits indefinitely to acquire the lock." Everything is clear now. Thanks ! Le 13/04/2011 15:23, Nikos Vassiliadis a écrit : > On 4/13/2011 12:08 PM, Bastien Semene wrote: >> I wish that if command #2 can't acquire the lock, lockf exits (exit 0 >> would be nice). >> If I set -t 1, lockf is quite what I'm waiting for. But I like to do >> this in a clear way : if it can't acquire the lock it exits, no timeout >> wait. >> >> Am I misunderstanding something ? What should I change ? >> > > You should use -t0, something like: >> lab# lockf -t 0 /tmp/lock /bin/csh >> You have mail. >> lab# lockf -t 0 /tmp/lock /bin/csh >> lockf: /tmp/lock: already locked >> lab# echo $? >> 75 >> lab# > > HTH, Nikos > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DA5B4C0.3060402>