On 2/23/09, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Definitely a kernel bug, if posix says it should return EWOULDBLOCK... > > flock is not POSIX, it's an interface invented by 4.2BSD, and was > previously emulated by glibc. The glibc wrapper implemented flock with > fcntl and made sure to return EWOULDBLOCK. > >> This is really going to suck, it looks like a lot of the locking >> primitives used EAGAIN and EWOULDBLOCK interchangeably... The fcntl >> manpage says 'EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK' so is flock(2) the only problem >> here? From a quick glance at posix, fcntl(2) returning EAGAIN is >> correct. > > I would warn you that the linux man pages are often incorrect. Hmmm -- "often" is rather strong. I will certainly allow "occasionally" (or perhaps a little more), and I note in passing that for someone making the claim of "often", I never saw a patch from you so far to correct an error... Cheers, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
