Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!milhow1!how
From: how@milhow1.UUCP (Mike Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Mandatory locking (was Re: the 'l' permission)
Keywords: mandatory locking; Xenix seems broken
Message-ID: <228@milhow1.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 88 22:19:00 GMT
References: <71@attibr.UUCP> <4594@ptsfa.PacBell.COM> <483@auspex.UUCP> <1988Nov26.220052.19423@ateng.ateng.com>
Reply-To: how@.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Miller/Howard Investments, Malden-on-Hudson, NY
Lines: 17

In article <1988Nov26.220052.19423@ateng.ateng.com> chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>[Followups directed to comp.unix.xenix; you'll see why.]
>
>According to guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris):
>>"Mandatory locking" merely means that if you use
>>"fcntl" or "lockf" to lock a region of the file, attempts to write the
> ....
>None, that's right, *none* of these locking methods provides advisory
>locking under SCO Xenix.  Even though fcntl() and lockf() MUST be
>advisory to conform to the SVID.  Instead, we get mandatory locking and,

Would someone knowledgable please explain (with examples) the distinction
between `manditory' and `advisory' locking.  (more than 25 words is ok with
me :-).   
-- 
Mike Howard
uunet!milhow1!how