[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ...
From: |
Lyndon Nerenberg |
Subject: |
[Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ... |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:21:09 -0700 |
I have spent the worse part of the day trying to make sense of how we configure
locking. A waste of a perfectly good long weekend, I know, but once something
starts annoying me ...
While lock_file.c differentiates between "spool" locks (I would call it the
mbox lock) and "other" locks, the configure scripts don't really seem to
provide a tried-and-true method to hardwire down each (should that be desired).
I.e. the assumption at ./configure time is that one size fits all. But it's
also possible to override the types at runtime in the profile.
Oracle Solaris 11 throws a wrench into the mix. It has obliterated flock(),
and in the course of fixing that up I stumbled across maillock(3MAIL), which
provides a set of functions to manipulate the locks on the "spool" mbox. But
they are very specific to locking only the user's "system" mailbox. E.g.:
int maillock(const char *user, int retrycnt);
void mailunlock(void);
void touchlock(void);
Obviously these are not suitable for use on anything other than the "spool"
mailbox, so it makes no sense to make these available for general use via the
profile.
But now I'm asking "why would anyone want to change these?" On any given UNIX
platform, there is one way to lock files in the general case (and perhaps
separately in the mbox case), and every other app I've seen just compiles in
those methods and calls it a day. Do we really need to be able to switch this
stuff at run time?
--lyndon
- [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ...,
Lyndon Nerenberg <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Valdis . Kletnieks, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Ken Hornstein, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Ken Hornstein, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Ken Hornstein, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., heymanj, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Ken Hornstein, 2013/06/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Locking. Horrible, horrible, locking ..., Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/06/30