Am 17.10.19 um 08:02 schrieb Ulrich Windl:
>> Or did I miss something and the second flock somehow obtains the inode
>> number of the old lock?
>
> I guess any new process arriving late cannot aquire the (same) lock once the
> first process has removed the name when the crowd has finished.
>
>>> Alexander Koch schrieb am 16.10.2019 um 16:14 in
Nachricht <9fb9c1a157e92baef1107ed3b66aa...@alexanderkoch.net>:
> * flock leaves the lock file behind so you'd need some type of
> cleanup in case you really want the jobs to be trace‑free. This is
> not as trivial is it might seem,
* flock leaves the lock file behind so you'd need some type of
cleanup in case you really want the jobs to be trace-free. This is
not as trivial is it might seem, e.g. you cannot do it from the
service units themselves in `ExecStartPost=` or similar.
An
ExecStartPost=-/usr/bin/flock -F
>>> Alexander Koch schrieb am 15.10.2019 um 21:48 in
Nachricht <39b05185c3bdf699f7f00c23e0a4a...@alexanderkoch.net>:
>> > * flock leaves the lock file behind so you'd need some type of
>>> cleanup in case you really want the jobs to be trace-free. This is
>>> not as trivial is it might seem, e.g.
