At Tue, 24 May 2011 12:33:47 +0100, Tim Brown wrote: > > From a Racket implementor's perspective, the BSD side has it right. > > It's not just subroutines within Racket, but different threads within a > > single Racket process that might compete for a file lock; when a thread > > fails to obtain a lock and closes a file, any thread in the same OS > > process that held the lock immediately loses it. > > Do I understand this right? > > Thread 1 opens file f, gets fd1, and asserts a read lock, and obtains it > > Thread 2 opens file f, gets fd2, and asserts a read lock, and obtains it > > Thread 3 opens file f, gets fd3, and asserts a write lock... > fails to obtains the lock and closes fd3 in disgust; which, by what > I understand you're saying is "a thread fails to obtain a lock and > closes a file"... do threads 1 and 2 lose their locks?
Yes, exactly. I've pushed changes to avoid flock() under Solaris and to rename `single'. Let me know if I got it wrong. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
