Complete last ChangeLog entry.

[gnulib.git] / tests / test-flock.c

diff --git a/tests/test-flock.c b/tests/test-flock.c
index beae8c8..1bef912 100644 (file)
--- a/tests/test-flock.c
+++ b/tests/test-flock.c
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 /* Test of flock() function.
 /* Test of flock() function.

-   Copyright (C) 2008-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+   Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

 
    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 
    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

-   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+   the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or

    (at your option) any later version.
 
    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    (at your option) any later version.
 
    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,


@@ -58,9 +58,31 @@ test_exclusive (const char *file, int fd)
   fd2 = open (file, O_RDWR, 0644);
   ASSERT (fd2 >= 0);
 
   fd2 = open (file, O_RDWR, 0644);
   ASSERT (fd2 >= 0);
 

-  r = flock (fd2, LOCK_SH | LOCK_NB);
+  r = flock (fd2, LOCK_EX | LOCK_NB);

   ASSERT (r == -1);             /* Was unable to acquire a second exclusive lock. */
 
   ASSERT (r == -1);             /* Was unable to acquire a second exclusive lock. */
 

+#if 0
+  /* The Linux manual page of flock(2) says:
+       "A process may only hold one type of lock (shared or exclusive) on a
+       file. Subsequent flock() calls on an already locked file will convert
+       an existing lock to the new lock mode."
+     So, the call below should convert the exclusive lock for fd to a shared
+     and thus succeeds.  The fact that it doesn't but instead fails is
+     apparently a bug.  */
+  /* The Solaris manual page of flock(2) says:
+       "More than one process may hold a shared lock for a file at any given
+        time, but multiple exclusive, or both shared and exclusive, locks may
+        not exist simultaneously on a file. ...
+        Requesting a lock on an object that is already locked normally causes
+        the caller to block until the lock may be acquired. If LOCK_NB is
+        included in operation, then this will not happen; instead, the call
+        will fail and the error EWOULDBLOCK will be returned."
+     So, the call below should fail and set errno to EWOULDBLOCK.  The fact
+     that it succeeds is apparently a bug.  */
+  r = flock (fd2, LOCK_SH | LOCK_NB);
+  ASSERT (r == -1);
+#endif
+

   ASSERT (flock (fd, LOCK_UN) == 0);
   ASSERT (close (fd2) == 0);
 }
   ASSERT (flock (fd, LOCK_UN) == 0);
   ASSERT (close (fd2) == 0);
 }


@@ -76,7 +98,9 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[])
   ASSERT (fd >= 0);
   ASSERT (write (fd, "hello", 5) == 5);
 
   ASSERT (fd >= 0);
   ASSERT (write (fd, "hello", 5) == 5);
 

-  /* Some impossible operation codes which should never be accepted. */
+#if defined __linux__
+  /* Invalid operation codes are rejected by the Linux implementation and by
+     the gnulib replacement,  but not by the MacOS X implementation.  */

   ASSERT (flock (fd, LOCK_SH | LOCK_EX) == -1);
   ASSERT (errno == EINVAL);
   ASSERT (flock (fd, LOCK_SH | LOCK_UN) == -1);
   ASSERT (flock (fd, LOCK_SH | LOCK_EX) == -1);
   ASSERT (errno == EINVAL);
   ASSERT (flock (fd, LOCK_SH | LOCK_UN) == -1);


@@ -85,6 +109,7 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[])
   ASSERT (errno == EINVAL);
   ASSERT (flock (fd, 0) == -1);
   ASSERT (errno == EINVAL);
   ASSERT (errno == EINVAL);
   ASSERT (flock (fd, 0) == -1);
   ASSERT (errno == EINVAL);

+#endif

 
   test_shared (file, fd);
   test_exclusive (file, fd);
 
   test_shared (file, fd);
   test_exclusive (file, fd);