Date:	Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:11:26 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
cc:	eplmst AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Locking fcntl() and flock() patches
In-Reply-To:	<5.0.2.1.0.20001202121231.0238eec0@pop5.banet.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001204131108.15453E@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Peter J. Farley III wrote:

> So to use these enhanced functions, programmers will use 64-bit values 
> in 64-bit structures that parallel the current 32-bit ones, right?

Yes.

> But 
> since fcntl uses a vararg plist, they will *not* have to use fcntl64 to 
> utilize the new functions, just pass an appropriate command and an 
> flock64 structure to the existing fcntl.

Right.  When using F_SETLK, the third argument to fcntl should be a
pointer to a struct flock; when using F_SETLK64, it should be a
pointer to a struct flock64.

> And the new flock function should also use these new arguments, to
> support 4GB files?

Correct.

- Raw text -