From:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:09:06 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Locking fcntl() and flock() patches
Message-ID:	<3A2232C2.2752.12CA0D@localhost>
References:	<5 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 4 DOT 0 DOT 20001127000014 DOT 00a46b50 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001127134354.17219B-100000@is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> > +  new_dev_info = _get_dev_info(fd);
> > +
> > +  /* If the dev info words are equal, then the documented
> > +     interface can't be used to set the inheritance bit.  */
> > +  return (new_dev_info == dev_info) ? 1 : 0;
> 
> The above comment seems to be misleading: acrually, if the info words
> are equal, the documented interface *can* be used to set inheritance
> bit.  Or am I missing something?

This is part of my original code, so it's my doing. The word 'can't' should 
indeed be deleted.

> 
> > +    case F_SETLKW:
> > +    {
> > +      struct flock *lock_req = NULL; /* shut up -Wall */
> > +      int ret = -1;
> > +      off_t pos, cur_pos, lock_pos;
> > +      off_t len;

When I came up with this part, the FAT32 support was not yet in. So it's my 
mistake that offset_t and llseek wasn't used here.

Mark

- Raw text -