Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:10:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: n@nectar.com Cc: mcgovern@spoon.beta.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK during open... (locking for devices?) Message-ID: <199808062310.SAA01179@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <E0z4JuL-0004PY-00@spawn.nectar.com> (message from Jacques Vidrine on Thu, 06 Aug 1998 01:52:17 -0500) References: <199807311744.NAA13956@spoon.beta.com> <199808060549.AAA13226@detlev.UUCP> <E0z4JuL-0004PY-00@spawn.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK are advisory, not mandatory. In other words, >> the apps are going to ignore them anyway. Lock files are the way to >> go. > Huh? > Sure, O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK are advisory, but so are lock files. > Applications are free to ignore any of them. I didn't mean to imply that lockfiles are mandatory. I meant that they are the recommended locking mechanism, since both are advisory anyway. All apps running now are pretty well guaranteed to not use flock. This is based on the fact that it doesn't work. A programmer being cautious enough to use flock would likely use uu lockfiles. So, use lockfiles so you can work with more apps. Best, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808062310.SAA01179>