From: Martin Str|mberg Message-Id: <199806132329.BAA12138@father.ludd.luth.se> Subject: Re: UMSDOS To: broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 01:29:36 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS) In-Reply-To: from Hans-Bernhard Broeker at "Jun 8, 98 12:41:28 pm" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk According to Hans-Bernhard Broeker: > On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Martin Str|mberg wrote: > > > Following the links to links thread with interest, I want to know how > > you look at the issue of porting Linux UMSDOS system to DJGPP. > > I think this has even less probability of being done than VFAT support in > plain DOS (which seems to be available, at least for OpenDOS users). The > basic problem is that this kind of operation can only be implemented > sensibly by the operating system (or the multitasker, if the OS itself is > singletasked). Otherwise, we'd get into loads of problems with several > DJGPP programs trying to modify the 'hidden' datastructure simultaneously. > > Just think of two DJGPP programs working multitasked (under Win3.1, where > no VFAT support exists), both operating on files in the same directory. > Result: crashes, corrupted long filenames, or even corrupted file system. Well I don't see a problem there: there are some enticing functions in DJGPP's libc like _dos_lock(); although I suspect that only works in a networked environment. Nevertheless, I can always resort to open("./lock", CREATE|EXCL) or something like that (I don't remember the syntax right now). That operation must be atomic at least. I hope that this is the case even for DOZE boxes in Windoze. What kind of synchronisation functionality does Win31 et al. provide? Perhaps it is possible to know/detect if this is plain DOZE or a more multitasking environment and only then bother with exclusion locks. Thoughts anyone? Throwing Muses, Limbo, MartinS