Re: Interoperation of flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3)

On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 01:00:13PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > "Yar Tikhiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > > Considering all the above, I'd like to add the following paragraph > > to the flock(2), lockf(3), and fcntl(2) man pages (replacing the > > sentence quoted from lockf(3)): > > >

Re: Interoperation of flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3)

On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 01:21:14PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've always been confused by the following sentence from the lockf(3) > manpage: > > The lockf(), fcntl(2) and flock(2) locks may be safely used > concurrently. > > Does that mean that each of those calls use

Re: Interoperation of flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3)

"Yar Tikhiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Considering all the above, I'd like to add the following paragraph > to the flock(2), lockf(3), and fcntl(2) man pages (replacing the > sentence quoted from lockf(3)): > > The flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3) locks are compatible. > Processes using

Interoperation of flock(2), fcntl(2), and lockf(3)

Hi folks, I've always been confused by the following sentence from the lockf(3) manpage: The lockf(), fcntl(2) and flock(2) locks may be safely used concurrently. Does that mean that each of those calls uses a locking mechanism of its own? Of course, in practice those calls use