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