On Mar 12 15:40, Robert Klemme wrote: > Hi, > > I searched the archives but could not find any related issue. My > problem is this: I use flock with a timeout but apparently the timeout > does not work, i.e. flock waits longer than specified. Script is > attached. Output is here: > > This is ok, timeout is longer than needed: > > 15:34:27 tmp$ ./fl-test-2.sh > CYGWIN_NT-5.1 padrklemme1 1.5.25(0.156/4/2) 2008-06-12 19:34 i686 Cygwin > -rw-r--r-- 1 RKlemme Domain Users 0 Mar 12 15:34 lock > timeout 10 > started 1 > 3672 Thu Mar 12 15:34:32 WEST 2009 > started 2 > 3672 Thu Mar 12 15:34:33 WEST 2009 > waiting... > 3672 Thu Mar 12 15:34:34 WEST 2009 > 3672 Thu Mar 12 15:34:35 WEST 2009 > 3672 Thu Mar 12 15:34:36 WEST 2009 > 2884 Thu Mar 12 15:34:37 WEST 2009 > 2884 Thu Mar 12 15:34:39 WEST 2009 > 2884 Thu Mar 12 15:34:40 WEST 2009 > 2884 Thu Mar 12 15:34:41 WEST 2009 > 2884 Thu Mar 12 15:34:42 WEST 2009 > done
10 seconds > This looks wrong, timeout is much shorter than what the process takes > and should abort: > > 15:34:43 tmp$ ./fl-test-2.sh 2 > CYGWIN_NT-5.1 padrklemme1 1.5.25(0.156/4/2) 2008-06-12 19:34 i686 Cygwin > -rw-r--r-- 1 RKlemme Domain Users 0 Mar 12 15:34 lock > timeout 2 > started 1 > 2444 Thu Mar 12 15:34:45 WEST 2009 > started 2 > 2444 Thu Mar 12 15:34:47 WEST 2009 > waiting... > 2444 Thu Mar 12 15:34:48 WEST 2009 > 2444 Thu Mar 12 15:34:49 WEST 2009 > 2444 Thu Mar 12 15:34:50 WEST 2009 > 4064 Thu Mar 12 15:34:51 WEST 2009 > 4064 Thu Mar 12 15:34:52 WEST 2009 > 4064 Thu Mar 12 15:34:53 WEST 2009 > 4064 Thu Mar 12 15:34:55 WEST 2009 > 4064 Thu Mar 12 15:34:56 WEST 2009 > done 11 seconds > Any ideas? Am I doing something wrong? On second thought, maybe I don't understand what you're expecting. Running the testcase on a Linux box I get this: Linux calimero 2.6.[etc] -rw-r--r-- 1 corinna vinschen 0 Mar 12 16:48 lock timeout 10 started 1 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:48 CET 2009 started 2 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:49 CET 2009 waiting... 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:50 CET 2009 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:51 CET 2009 3644 Thu Mar 12 16:48:52 CET 2009 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:53 CET 2009 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:54 CET 2009 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:55 CET 2009 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:56 CET 2009 3662 Thu Mar 12 16:48:57 CET 2009 done 9 seconds I don't see that this is different in the sense of "more correct" than on Cygwin. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
