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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox