From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Olum Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17706: 24.4.50; locked file error in rmail-insert-inbox-text Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:16:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1402748242 7943 80.91.229.3 (14 Jun 2014 12:17:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17706@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 14 14:17:14 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WvmtW-0003BQ-Q3 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:17:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35178 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WvmtW-0004yX-9k for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:17:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WvmtP-0004xZ-Ef for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:17:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WvmtK-0003cc-LO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:17:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56096) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WvmtK-0003cX-IK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:17:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WvmtJ-0004hQ-Nd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:17:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Resent-From: Ken Olum Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17706 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17706-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17706.140274820318015 (code B ref 17706); Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17706) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jun 2014 12:16:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47246 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wvmt0-0004gU-Fr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:16:42 -0400 Original-Received: from cosmos.phy.tufts.edu ([130.64.83.16]:46134) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wvmsx-0004gG-RH for 17706@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:16:40 -0400 Original-Received: from kdo by cosmos.phy.tufts.edu ([local]:local) with local id 1Wvmsx-0003Sv-Df - Using Exim-4.80.1 (MandrivaLinux) MTA (return-path ); Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:16:39 -0400 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:90375 Archived-At: From: Eli Zaretskii Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:34:39 +0300 Maybe we should improve what Emacs does in this case by calling ask-user-about-lock instead of just erroring out? Thinking about this more, I'm not sure it is such a good idea. For one thing, there is the possibility of races, since we aren't actually locking the file but just checking if it is locked. Perhaps more importantly, if the user says to steal the file, I don't know how to actually do so. This is normally done by lock_file after ask-user-about-lock returns t. And if the user says to ignore the lock, I don't know how to prevent this query again when the buffer actually is modified. So maybe it would be better to actually lock the file. Then we'd be using file locks as intended. The way I'd do it is to lock the file in rmail-get-new-mail-1 before calling rmail-insert-inbox-text and then unlock it after saving the file with the new messages or after discovering that there are none. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any lisp interface to lock_file, but I guess I could set buffer-modified-p and then call lock-buffer. What do you think? Ken