On Jun 6 12:58, Warren Young wrote: > On 6/6/2013 11:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > >The lazy unlock request D tells the system to unlock all locks on the > >entire file. This works fine with POSIX locks, but it does not work > >with Windows locks. These require to unlock a lock exactly as it has > >been created. > > I wouldn't be upset if you decided that was grounds for removing the > code that tries to support mandatory locking for POSIX locks. As > far as I'm concerned, this is very much an experimental feature, and > experiments often fail. The failure already told us what to try > next (BSD locks) and according to the one report received so far, it > looks like it might fix it.
Well, after all it's still record locking, so it's kind of weird to support a flock-like file lock but no record locks. If an application uses this carefully with Windows semantics in mind, it might even be useful. However, what's missing in the long run is documentation. I'm just about to add a few words to the docs. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
