Comment 17 for bug 1767105

> Another question that raises is, why to use fcntl as a backing mechanism for
> the
> LDAP locking ? If the lock was supposed to be guaranteed among different
> nodes,
> then backing the lock in a file, IF the name was based also on the instance
> id,
> which in this case is not, it could make sense. But in a shared-threaded only
> environment, why ?

the locking is only meant to be among the N children of a single instance / parent process. You should find the PID here is the parent pid. So I think this aspect is OK.

I have seen fcntl related errors on other OS'es, where APR might use it by default, related to EDEADLOCK being returned when two unrelated threads use two unrelated fcntl mutexes.