Re: /cygdrive in CVS? Time for 1.5.6 soon.

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at netscape dot net>]

Corinna wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:21:51PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:57:48AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to release 1.5.6 soon and, if this is a real
> > > problem, it is not one that we can ignore.
> >
> > Not within the next hour I hope.  I'm currently testing the new fcntl64
> > stuff to support 64 bit file locking.  I'd like to see this in 1.5.6, too.
>
>
> Ok, I've checked this in.  I found an interesting thing in the testsuite
> while testing this.  The fcntl function is called like this:
>
>   flocks.l_type = F_RDLCK | F_WRLCK;
>   fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &flocks);
>
> According to SUSv3 and the Linux man pages, the l_type is either one of
> F_RDLCK (shared lock), F_WRLCK (exclusive lock) or F_UNLCK (unlock).
>
> None of these documents describe these values as or'able.  Nevertheless
> the testsuite tests fcntl09 and fcntl10 do it like above, which only
> works, if one of F_RDLCK or F_WRLCK is 0.  This is a non-portable
> assumption.  F_RDLCK is 1 and F_RDLCK is 2 on Cygwin, together that's
> 3, which is the value for F_UNLCK.  Too bad.

Actually, you might want check this against the original LTP source.  If 
you look at the original, I think it makes more sense (at least to me), 
since this logic was setting the l_type based on the size of a counter 
in a for loop.  Breifly, this is a portion of the difference as compared 
to our version 0f fcntl09:

<<<diff -u fcntl09.c.ltp fcntl09.c.cygwin>>>
  for (lc=0; TESTLOOPING
-  int type;
-  for (type = 0, type < 2; type++){

    Tst_count=0;

-   flocks.l_type = type ? F_RDLCK : F_WRLCK;
+   flocks.l_type = F_RDLCK : F_WRLCK;

Cheers,
Nicholas