>>But then you say (in another message) that you want nmh programs to not >>deadlock under our hypothetical nmhlock program > >If I said something that amounted to that, it's not what I meant. I don't know >what I might have said that led you to believe that's what I meant. Which is >not >to say that, in my confusion, I said nothing that amounted to that.
I guess I was thinking that based on this message: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2012-04/msg00111.html I mean, why would you want nmh programs to not deadlock under mhlock unless you wanted to run them? That's where things get tricky. >I also admit that I don't understand why nmh locking has to be so complicated, >but I leave that issue to my betters. Well, it's just as complicated as it needs to be. The issue is that the sequences files and context files get modified a lot, so those need to be locked. And (generally) sequence files are per-folder. So I'm not sure how you could make locking work and not make any simpler than it is now (unless you wanted to do the equivalent of a biglock; we don't want that, do we?). --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
