On Tue, Jul 31, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> On Jul 31, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I believe fcntl locking is fine, but have not investigated. We could flip
>> to fcntl
>> locking on HEAD for a month or so to insure there are no surprises. I do
>> think NPTL locking, when available, is the better implementation going
>> forward because it unifies thread and process locking.
>
> I should be more careful:
>
>    NPTL == Berkeley DB locking using posix shared mutexes implemented
>     on linux using futexes and NPTL.
>
> Shall we flip to fcntl locking on HEAD for a couple of weeks?
>
> Or perhaps I should say, "Should  I flip to fcntl locking?", OpenPKG may
> already be there.

We are using fcntl(2) locking for DB in RPM since over 5 years now and
never encountered any problems. And we drive RPM on really lots of
different platforms. So, I expect that fcntl(2) locking will not make
any problems at all...
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com