[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#43651: ACCEPTED] mailbox locking



Any progress on this, by any chance?  There was a suggested
implementation in the bug report; should that go in policy as a
footnote?

   Julian

> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> 
> > I am about to include this amendment in policy.  However, I am stuck
> > with the wording, as you say the following.
> >
> > Questions: What version number should be used in footnote 2?
> >            What do we do with the reference implementation?
> 
> Good question.  I didn't hear from Miquel van Smoorenburg (the
> maintainer of liblockfile) since 1999-09-21.  In his last mail he
> thought about different way how to implement the changed the behavior
> in liblockfile (by completely changing the API or by leaving the
> fcntl() part to the calling program).
>  
> > > So I think we should change the above paragraph to something which
> > > explicitly says, how locking has to be implemented:
> > > 
> > >      All Debian MUAs, MTAs, MDAs and other mailbox accessing programs
> > >      (like IMAP daemons) have to lock the mailbox in a NFS-safe way.
> > >      This means that fcntl() locking has to be combined with dot
> > >      locking.  To avoid dead locks, a program has to use fcntl() first
> > >      and dot locking after this or alternatively implement the two
> > >      locking methods in a non blocking way[1].  Using the functions
> > >      `maillock' and `mailunlock' provided by the `liblockfile*'[2]
> > >      packages is the recommended way to realize this.
> > > 
> > >      Footnotes: 
> > >      [1] If it is not possible to establish both locks, the system
> > >          shouldn't wait for the second lock to be established, but
> > >          remove the first lock, wait a (random) time, and start over
> > >          locking again.
> > >      [2] liblockfile version >= .... (fill in a version number here,
> > >          which implements the above noted non blocking mechanism
> > >          without blocking).
> 
> Maybe we should say "liblockfile version >> 1.01" until there is no
> new version available yet?
> 
> Miquel, what are you thinking about this?
> 
> Ciao
> 
>         Roland
> 
> -- 
>  * roland@spinnaker.de * http://www.spinnaker.de/ *
> 
> 



   Julian

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
        Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://www.debian.org/~jdg


Reply to: