Re: elm 2.5.3 and glibc 2.1.93

[Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>]

"H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:

|> With glibc 2.1.93, I got
|> 
|> # elm
|> Cannot lock folder - giving up.  Please try again in a few minutes.
|> 
|> >From strace, I got
|> 
|> open("/var/spool/mail/hjl", O_RDWR)     = 4     
|> fcntl64(4, F_SETLK, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0}) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not implemented)
|> fcntl(4, F_SETLK, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0}) = 0
|> write(1, "\33[?1l\33>", 7^[[?1l^[>)              = 7
|> write(1, "\33[24;1H\r\n", 9^[[24;1H^M)            = 9
|> write(1, "\33[2J\33[?47l\0338", 12^[[2J^[[?47l^[8)     = 12    
|> ioctl(0, SNDCTL_TMR_STOP, {B9600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) = 0
|> write(2, "Cannot lock folder - giving up. "..., 67Cannot lock folder - giving up.  Please try again in a few minutes.) = 67
|> 
|> It looks like elm 2.5.3 may check errno even when fcntl returns 0.

This is broken.  The value of errno is only defined if the syscall failed.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                  "And now for something
SuSE Labs                                        completely different."
Andreas.Schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg