8886
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8885
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8884
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8883
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8882
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8881
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8880
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8879
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8878
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8877
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8876
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8875
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8874
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8873
|
|
tweaks: don't bother using the exclusive flag when creating a lock file
One microsecond earlier, the lock file has been deleted (if it existed), so, if between our unlink() and our open() some other process managed to recreate the lock file... well, we want to delete it *again*. So, just overwrite and truncate the lock file (if it exists).
When the lock file did NOT exist (a few microseconds earlier, when checking in do_lockfile(), before calling write_lockfile()), then the user expects the lock file to be written, so: just write it.
That between the check and the actual writing of the lock file there is a small window of opportunity for other processes to write this lock file is unfortunate, but it is not a reason to bother the user with an error message when it happens.
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8872
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
3 years ago
|
|
|
8871
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
4 years ago
|
|
|
8870
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
4 years ago
|
|
|
8869
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
4 years ago
|
|
|
8868
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
4 years ago
|
|
|
8867
|
|
|
Benno Schulenberg |
4 years ago
|
|
|