This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: F_ULOCK, F_LOCK, F_TLOCK, F_TEST missing in unistd.h
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:11:09 +0200
- Subject: Re: F_ULOCK, F_LOCK, F_TLOCK, F_TEST missing in unistd.h
- References: <20040826133503.GE27978@cygbert.vinschen.de> <200408270348.i7R3mS8r029145@mx3.redhat.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
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.
> If so (and I must be missing something there), couldn't this be implemented
> in Windows simply as named mutexes, with the names being some
> suitably-chosen derivative of the file name? You wouldn't even need to do
> any explicit sharing between Cygwin processes then.
Keep in mind that it's not per-file locking but record locking. So you'd
need mutex names which reflect the locked region in the file as well. But
then you'd need one mutex per locked record. How do you find overlapping
regions hold by other processes? To make it worse, flock(2) locks are
preserved across forks, so both processes hold the lock together.
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/