X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:59:34 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: file locking behaviour Message-ID: <20071009075934.GD20400@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <21e1598b0710081432g3cedf377wbb69d023cf08bb22 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <21e1598b0710081437m3f43ae06k9b2f58ec41819be6 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21e1598b0710081437m3f43ae06k9b2f58ec41819be6@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Oct 8 23:37, Damjan Lango wrote: > Hello! > > I have a program that uses: > > lock.l_type = F_WRLCK; > fcntl(log->handle, F_SETLK, &lock) > > the file is then locked also for reads, is that correct behaviour? > I thought that only writing would be locked. > on unix the file stays readable even if using the above code. The behaviour is correct as far as mandatory locking is concerned. Under POSIX file locking is supposed to be advisory locking which doesn't actually enforce the lock. The problem for us is the fact that Windows does only implement mandatory locking and that's what is used in Cygwin for now. Implementing advisory file locking is on my ToDo list for quite some time now but..., well... http://cygwin.com/contrib.html Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/