Re: [PATCH] history locking with fcntl

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

Wayne Davison wrote:
> I personally think this patch goes too far.  There is a lockhistfile()
> call that is done to give a particular shell exclusive control over the
> history files.  I'd prefer to see any extra locking done there.

Sounds reasonable to me, but you have more idea of the structure of this
bit.

> Additional discussion:  I think the option name should be made more
> generic so that it can be made to support more types of file locking,
> such as the flock() call.  Perhaps call it HIST_EXTRA_LOCKING?

I wondered about that, but something along the lines of Bart's concerns
came to me.  Consequently, I was quite happy with an option that read as
THIS_IS_A_BIT_TECHY_AND_YOU_PROBABLY_OUGHT_TO_KNOW_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DONG
rather than GREAT_NEW_OPTION_TRY_ME_TRY_ME.  However, a suitably worded
caveat in the documentation might be a better method.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road
Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070