I'm currently testing this out. It seems to be working out alright.
adrian@test3:~/work/freebsd % svn diff stable/10/src/sys/kern/
--- stable/10/src/sys/kern/kern_lockf.c (revision 267627)
+++ stable/10/src/sys/kern/kern_lockf.c (working copy)
@@ -1425,6 +1425,14 @@
if (lockf_debug & 1)
lf_print("lf_setlock: deadlock", lock);
+ * If the lock isn't waiting, return EAGAIN
+ * rather than EDEADLK.
+ if (((lock->lf_flags & F_WAIT) == 0) &&
+ (error == EDEADLK))
+ error = EAGAIN;
On 3 July 2014 17:45, Adrian Chadd <adrian.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen sqlite3 crap out due to "disk IO error". It looks like the
> F_SETFL path is returning EDEADLK when it shouldn't be - only the
> "wait" version of this should be.
> The kernel code looks to be:
> lf_setlock() -> lf_add_outgoing() -> lf_add_edge() -> graph_add_edge()
> -> EDEADLK
> .. and lf_setlock() will return an error from lf_add_outgoing()
> without checking if it's (a) EDEADLK, and (b) whether we're going to
> sleep or not.
> So, sqlite3 trips up on this. I'm sure other things do. What should
> the correct thing be? It looks like EWOULDBLOCK is the correct value
> to return for F_SETFL failing, not EDEADLK.
> What do those-who-know-POSIX-standards-better-than-I think?
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"