On 2/16/2012 6:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 15 14:14, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 2/15/2012 1:20 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 15 13:15, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2012 12:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 15 11:39, David Rothenberger wrote:
>>>>>> But... now one of the flock tests is failing. It takes a while to
>>>>>> extract a STC from the APR test suite because everything is written in
>>>>>> APR-ese and I have to convert every APR call into the base C library
>>>>>> calls. I'll work on that over the next day or three.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The gist of the test that's failing is this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  * Create a file.
>>>>>>  * Get an exclusive flock on it.
>>>>>>  * Spawn a child process that attempts to get an exclusive, non-blocking
>>>>>>    lock on the file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The test is expecting that the child will not be able to get the lock,
>>>>>> but the child is able to.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Does it fork/exec or does it only exec? 
>>>>
>>>> Looks like fork/exec. execv to be precise.
>>>>
>>>>> I guess I really need the testcase.
>>>> [...]
> 
> I read the Linux man page again (http://linux.die.net/man/2/flock)
> and I just hacked the following testcase, based on your flock STC.

That sounds pretty close to what the APR test case is doing, as far as I
understand.

> The testcase is attached.  I'm pretty curious what your test is actually
> testing.

I got to work at my real job all last night, so couldn't extract the STC
from the APR test suite. But, here's the test in APR-ese in case you're
interested. I'll remove the APRisms as soon as I can to get you another
test case.

-- 
David Rothenberger  ----  daveroth@acm.org