Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263590AbTEDMq3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 08:46:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263591AbTEDMq3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 08:46:29 -0400 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:56704 "EHLO mail.jlokier.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263590AbTEDMq2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 08:46:28 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 13:58:45 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Mikhail Kruk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fcntl file locking and pthreads Message-ID: <20030504125845.GA32087@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 630 Lines: 16 Mikhail Kruk wrote: > on 2.4 kernels fcntl-based file locking does not work with > clone-based threads as expected (by me): two threads of the same process > can acquire exclusive lock on a file at the same time. > flock()-based locks work as expected, i.e. only one thread can have an > exclusive lock at a time. Is this true even when _not_ setting CLONE_FILES? cheers, -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/