Re: [PATCH] history locking with fcntl

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 18,  2:49am, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
}
} > (more specifically, only creat() was guaranteed to be atomic and
} > lock daemons were flaky).
} 
} Some software, like Firefox, uses symlink() locking. So, if symlink()
} isn't atomic, there will be problems with such software.

(1) Note I said "was", not "is".

(2) Procmail's code pre-dates near-universal availability of symlink().

} I don't see why it can be dangerous if it is used in addition to
} another lock mechanism, like it currently is.

That's OK, then (as long as the equivalent of rpc.lockd is running, of
course).  My copy of your message didn't actually have the patch in it, 
and I've been running back and forth to a conference all this week so
I didn't go out of my way to check whether this was an "either" or an
"as well."