2009/3/12 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>: > On second thought, maybe I don't understand what you're expecting. > Running the testcase on a Linux box I get this: > > Linux calimero 2.6.[etc] > -rw-r--r-- 1 corinna vinschen 0 Mar 12 16:48 lock > timeout 10 > started 1 > 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:48 CET 2009 > started 2 > 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:49 CET 2009 > waiting... > 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:50 CET 2009 > 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:51 CET 2009 > 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:52 CET 2009 > 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:53 CET 2009 > 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:54 CET 2009 > 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:55 CET 2009 > 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:56 CET 2009 > 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:57 CET 2009 > done > > 9 seconds > > I don't see that this is different in the sense of "more correct" than > on Cygwin.
Sorry, I overlooked the timeout setting: of course, this is correct. But if you start it with command line argument 1 (i.e. timeout 1 second) the second flock should bail out with an error since it cannot obtain the lock in time. Kind regards robert -- 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/
