Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:31:20 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Locking fcntl changes #2
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20001213202344.00a512f0@pop5.banet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001214113107.25353B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Peter J. Farley III wrote:

>  >EACCES is too ubiquitous on DOS, so I'd prefer EAGAIN.
> 
> I must respectfully disagree.  Isn't EACCES a much better description 
> of a locking error than EAGAIN?  EACCES may be too common, but aren't 
> locking violations exactly what EACCES was intended to describe?

It's arguable: locking violations mean both EACCES and EAGAIN.

But I don't see any reason to argue about this.  If you prefer EACCES,
so be it.