F_ULOCK, F_LOCK, F_TLOCK, F_TEST missing in unistd.h

Sat Aug 28 12:02:00 GMT 2004

On Aug 27 21:27, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > On Aug 26 22:48, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > > Well, I just did my 2 minute due diligence and looked up the 
> > > difference between advisory and mandatory file locking. Did I read 
> > > right? Does advisory locking actually in no way prevent 
> > write access to the "locked"
> > > file unless all the interested processes also explicitly 
> > use lockf() etc?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
>> Wow. Is this acually a useful thing, or just an unseemly holdover from the
> bad-old-days?

Yes, this is a useful thing. Also POSIX does only define advisory locking.
See "mandatory.txt" in the Linux docs for more information.
> Hmmm. Well, is there some reason you couldn't just use LockFile{Ex} et al?
> Any apps that are expecting to simultaneously write to the same file without
> "real" locking are busted anyway, aren't they?

LockFile/LockFileEx are mandatory locking, plus they are far from having
POSIX semantics. See MSDN, especially the description of UnlockFileEx.
Corinna
-- 
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/