Re: [Nmh-workers] dot locking broken?

[David Levine]

Marcin wrote:

> >> David Levine <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> >> I was also wondering if we should give the user to abort waiting
> >> >> for a lock with ^C.
> >> >
> >> > I tried, and ^C works for me (on Linux).
> >>
> >> That's interesting, from what I see in the inc code SIGINT is
> >> trapped in inc.c, lines 513++ ?
> >
> > And that code is conditional on trnflag.  I was testing with -file,
> > which didn't use it.  It looks like the signal handlers are there
> > to avoid corruption when the mailbox would be modified.  I think
> > they should be retained.
>
> Before we successfuly lock I think we cannot corrupt anything,
> so my idea to improve this is something along the lines below.

The potential corruption problem is after locking.  Is it
possible to move the signal handlers to just after the lock is
acquired?

I'm not convinced that setjmp/longjmp is necessary here.

David