[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking

From: norm
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking In Scripts and nmh Locking
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 15:34:04 -0700

Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> writes:
>>>But then you say (in another message) that you want nmh programs to not
>>>deadlock under our hypothetical nmhlock program
>>If I said something that amounted to that, it's not what I meant. I don't know
>>what I might have said that led you to believe that's what I meant. Which is 
>>to say that, in my confusion, I said nothing that amounted to that.
>I guess I was thinking that based on this message:
>I mean, why would you want nmh programs to not deadlock under mhlock unless
>you wanted to run them?  That's where things get tricky.

Yep. I said that. But I no longer know why, if I ever did know.

>>I also admit that I don't understand why nmh locking has to be so complicated,
>>but I leave that issue to my betters.
>Well, it's just as complicated as it needs to be.  The issue is that the
>sequences files and context files get modified a lot, so those need to
>be locked.  And (generally) sequence files are per-folder.  So I'm not
>sure how you could make locking work and not make any simpler than
>it is now (unless you wanted to do the equivalent of a biglock; we don't
>want that, do we?).

I don't know why we don't want that. But there is no reason why I need to know.
At this point I retire from this locking discussion with the hope that I don't
gag on all the feet in my mouth.

    Norman Shapiro

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]