From: "J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: John Covici <covici@ccs.covici.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: is flock broken in 2.4 or 2.5 kernels or what does this mean?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:44:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020723214410.GA3249@werewolf.able.es> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1027441872.31787.139.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 18:31:12 +0200
On 2002.07.23 Alan Cox wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 15:41, John Covici wrote:
>> In the latest release notes of sendmail I have read the following:
>>
>> NOTE: Linux appears to have broken flock() again. Unless
>> the bug is fixed before sendmail 8.13 is shipped,
>> 8.13 will change the default locking method to
>> fcntl() for Linux kernel 2.4 and later. You may
>> want to do this in 8.12 by compiling with
>> -DHASFLOCK=0. Be sure to update other sendmail
>> related programs to match locking techniques.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me what this is all about -- is there any basis in
>> reality for what they are saying?
>
>First I've heard of it, so it would be useful if someone has access to
>the sendmail problem report/test in question that shows it and I'll go
>find out.
>
Perhaps if you have your spool over nfs:
man flock:
NOTES
flock(2) does not lock files over NFS. Use fcntl(2)
instead: that does work over NFS, given a sufficiently
recent version of Linux and a server which supports lock
ing.
flock(2) and fcntl(2) locks have different semantics with
respect to forked processes and dup(2).
--
J.A. Magallon \ Software is like sex: It's better when it's free
mailto:jamagallon@able.es \ -- Linus Torvalds, FSF T-shirt
Linux werewolf 2.4.19-rc3-jam1, Mandrake Linux 9.0 (Cooker) for i586
gcc (GCC) 3.1.1 (Mandrake Linux 8.3 3.1.1-0.10mdk)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-23 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-23 14:41 is flock broken in 2.4 or 2.5 kernels or what does this mean? John Covici
2002-07-23 16:31 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-23 15:27 ` Richard A Nelson
2002-07-23 15:50 ` Jirka Kosina
2002-07-23 21:44 ` J.A. Magallon [this message]
2002-07-24 16:08 ` David Ford
2002-07-25 1:28 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-23 23:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-07-23 23:28 dank
2002-07-23 23:31 ` dank
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020723214410.GA3249@werewolf.able.es \
--to=jamagallon@able.es \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=covici@ccs.covici.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.