Re: EDEADLK from fcntl(F_SETFL) ?

Hi,

I'm currently testing this out. It seems to be working out alright.

adrian_at_test3:~/work/freebsd % svn diff stable/10/src/sys/kern/

Index: stable/10/src/sys/kern/kern_lockf.c

===================================================================

--- stable/10/src/sys/kern/kern_lockf.c (revision 267627)

+++ stable/10/src/sys/kern/kern_lockf.c (working copy)

_at__at_ -1425,6 +1425,14 _at__at_

                        if (lockf_debug & 1)

                                lf_print("lf_setlock: deadlock", lock);

 #endif

+

+                       /*

+                        * If the lock isn't waiting, return EAGAIN

+                        * rather than EDEADLK.

+                        */

+                       if (((lock->lf_flags & F_WAIT) == 0) &&

+                           (error == EDEADLK))

+                               error = EAGAIN;

                        lf_free_lock(lock);

                        goto out;

                }

On 3 July 2014 17:45, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've seen sqlite3 crap out due to "disk IO error". It looks like the
> F_SETFL path is returning EDEADLK when it shouldn't be - only the
> "wait" version of this should be.
>
> The kernel code looks to be:
>
> lf_setlock() -> lf_add_outgoing() -> lf_add_edge() -> graph_add_edge()
> -> EDEADLK
>
> .. and lf_setlock() will return an error from lf_add_outgoing()
> without checking if it's (a) EDEADLK, and (b) whether we're going to
> sleep or not.
>
> So, sqlite3 trips up on this. I'm sure other things do. What should
> the correct thing be? It looks like EWOULDBLOCK is the correct value
> to return for F_SETFL failing, not EDEADLK.
>
> What do those-who-know-POSIX-standards-better-than-I think?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> -a