From:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:11:22 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Locking fcntl() and flock() patches
Message-ID:	<3A243B9A.31778.2984396@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<5.0.1.4.0.20001128200658.0347bec0@pop5.banet.net>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1001128091411 DOT 27656C AT is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Waiting to hear from Mark on this, but it seems to me a reasonable 
> change to make.  Mark, what do you think?

I haven't been following the discussion. But from reading the earlier posts I 
see no problem with the change.

Also, I believe I wrote the mysterious comment (from my original code):
      /* DOS/Windows only support read locks on a per-file basis,
         so any attempted use of a read lock is an error.  */

based on some document, possibly the RBIL. Perhaps a better way to have put 
it would have been:
  /* DOS/Windows 9x do not support read locks, so any attempted use is an 
error.  */

It's better to specify Windows 9x and not just Windows since Windows NT can 
emulate read locks.

I can go along with the extra file handle checks, but I don't really think 
they're neccessary because the early _get_dev_info test does the job of 
filtering out bad handles.

Mark

- Raw text -