From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Yuri D'Elia Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#62614: Tramp attempts to remove lock file with 'remote-file-name-inhibit-locks t Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:54:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87iledypuz.fsf@wavexx.thregr.org> References: <87pm8mv2ex.fsf@wavexx.thregr.org> <87pm8lqs69.fsf@gmx.de> <874jpx1fn4.fsf@wavexx.thregr.org> <87mt3pcmv3.fsf@gmx.de> <87zg7pz2yx.fsf@wavexx.thregr.org> <87v8idz2qc.fsf@wavexx.thregr.org> <87jzytqmva.fsf@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11657"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: mu4e 1.10.0; emacs 30.0.50 Cc: 62614@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Albinus , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 03 16:59:18 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pjLeP-0002nH-BR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:59:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pjLeD-0005Cx-9z; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 10:59:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pjLeB-0005CU-Ae for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 10:59:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pjLeA-0003M5-5z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 10:59:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pjLe9-00063Z-OC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 10:59:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Yuri D'Elia Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 14:59:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62614 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 62614-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62614.168053391323245 (code B ref 62614); Mon, 03 Apr 2023 14:59:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 62614) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Apr 2023 14:58:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44988 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pjLdg-00062r-L3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 10:58:32 -0400 Original-Received: from erc.thregr.org ([46.43.2.63]:36954) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pjLdf-00062j-Dy for 62614@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2023 10:58:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [37.162.224.28] (helo=localhost) by erc.thregr.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) id 1pjLdg-000qy0-2r (envelope-from ); Mon, 03 Apr 2023 16:58:33 +0200 In-reply-to: <87jzytqmva.fsf@gmx.de> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:259190 Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 03 2023, Michael Albinus wrote: >> IMHO if lock creation is inhibited, we could still attempt to remove the >> lock to keep the old behavior, but then the warning shouldn't be >> generated as you don't expect the lock to exist in the normal case. > > That might be an option. But it wouldn't fix your use case, where you > try to avoid the file locking machinery for remote files at all. No, but it would fix an unexpected warning for both tramp and local files, which I think is beneficial. On Mon, Apr 03 2023, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > How about trying to remove the lock file, but if creation of lock > files is disabled, suppressing the warning? As above.