[Bug #1512163] Use one set of locking methods, lockf();
remove the flock() calls.
On FreeBSD, the two methods lockf() and flock() end up using the same
mechanism and the second one fails. A Linux man page claims that the
two methods are orthogonal (so locks acquired one way don't interact
with locks acquired the other way) but that clearly must be false.
diff --git a/Lib/mailbox.py b/Lib/mailbox.py
index 3777c8e..02fbb85 100755
--- a/Lib/mailbox.py
+++ b/Lib/mailbox.py
@@ -1798,7 +1798,7 @@
def _lock_file(f, dotlock=True):
- """Lock file f using lockf, flock, and dot locking."""
+ """Lock file f using lockf and dot locking."""
dotlock_done = False
try:
if fcntl:
@@ -1810,14 +1810,6 @@
f.name)
else:
raise
- try:
- fcntl.flock(f, fcntl.LOCK_EX | fcntl.LOCK_NB)
- except IOError, e:
- if e.errno == errno.EWOULDBLOCK:
- raise ExternalClashError('flock: lock unavailable: %s' %
- f.name)
- else:
- raise
if dotlock:
try:
pre_lock = _create_temporary(f.name + '.lock')
@@ -1845,16 +1837,14 @@
except:
if fcntl:
fcntl.lockf(f, fcntl.LOCK_UN)
- fcntl.flock(f, fcntl.LOCK_UN)
if dotlock_done:
os.remove(f.name + '.lock')
raise
def _unlock_file(f):
- """Unlock file f using lockf, flock, and dot locking."""
+ """Unlock file f using lockf and dot locking."""
if fcntl:
fcntl.lockf(f, fcntl.LOCK_UN)
- fcntl.flock(f, fcntl.LOCK_UN)
if os.path.exists(f.name + '.lock'):
os.remove(f.name + '.lock')