> If the lock file already exists, then fail silently. This will become
Maybe "skip all maintenance steps silently"?
> + if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) {
> + /*
> + * Another maintenance command is running.
> + *
> + * If --auto was provided, then it is likely due to a
> + * recursive process stack. Do not report an error in
> + * that case.
> + */
> + if (!opts->auto_flag && !opts->quiet)
> + error(_("lock file '%s' exists, skipping maintenance"),
> + lock_path);
> + free(lock_path);
> + return 0;
> + }
As it is, this doesn't seem very silent. :-) If we do want a message to
be printed maybe make it warning instead of error.
Other than that, the idea of having a lock file and the implementation
in this patch look good to me.
