Mercurial > emacs
comparison src/filelock.c @ 17165:f36d8f965ab5
Fix typos in comment.
author | Karl Heuer <kwzh@gnu.org> |
---|---|
date | Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:25:32 +0000 |
parents | f919de623142 |
children | 23039b06955a |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
17164:024399a1b442 | 17165:f36d8f965ab5 |
---|---|
56 don't want Emacs to have to communicate via pipes or sockets or | 56 don't want Emacs to have to communicate via pipes or sockets or |
57 whatever to other processes, either locally or remotely; rms says | 57 whatever to other processes, either locally or remotely; rms says |
58 that's too unreliable. Hence the separate file, which could | 58 that's too unreliable. Hence the separate file, which could |
59 theoretically be updated by daemons running separately -- but this | 59 theoretically be updated by daemons running separately -- but this |
60 whole idea is unimplemented; in practice, at least in our | 60 whole idea is unimplemented; in practice, at least in our |
61 environment, it seems such stale locks arise fiarly infrequently, and | 61 environment, it seems such stale locks arise fairly infrequently, and |
62 Emacs' standard methods of dealing with clashes suffice. | 62 Emacs' standard methods of dealing with clashes suffice. |
63 | 63 |
64 We use symlinks instead of normal files because (1) they can be | 64 We use symlinks instead of normal files because (1) they can be |
65 stored more efficiently on the filesystem, since the kernel knows | 65 stored more efficiently on the filesystem, since the kernel knows |
66 they will be small, and (2) all the info about the lock can be read | 66 they will be small, and (2) all the info about the lock can be read |
67 in a single system call (readlink). Although we could use regular | 67 in a single system call (readlink). Although we could use regular |
68 files to be useful on old systems lacking symlinks, noawdays | 68 files to be useful on old systems lacking symlinks, nowadays |
69 virtually all such systems are probably single-user anyway, so it | 69 virtually all such systems are probably single-user anyway, so it |
70 didn't seem worth the complication. | 70 didn't seem worth the complication. |
71 | 71 |
72 Similarly, we don't worry about a possible 14-character limit on | 72 Similarly, we don't worry about a possible 14-character limit on |
73 file names, because those are all the same systems that don't have | 73 file names, because those are all the same systems that don't have |