A timeout is not an eviction

A lock timeout should say that it gave up, not imply it took over.

Lock wait timed out after 30000 ms. The owner was not evicted.
Wait for the other process to finish and retry;
stop old bridge processes before upgrading.

That middle sentence is the one I would not have written, and it is the one that matters. The natural reading of a lock timeout is that the tool waited, decided the holder was stuck, broke the lock and continued. Plenty of tools do exactly that. If yours does not, the error message is the only place a reader can find out.

Breaking a lock on a timeout is a choice to corrupt state on a slow machine. The holder is usually not dead; it is busy, swapping, or on a filesystem having a bad minute.

There is a second rule underneath: nested locks share one wait budget. Several operations take a lock while holding another, and giving each its own timeout turns a configured thirty seconds into ninety. The budget is charged by elapsed time and passed down, and repeated interruptions are charged to it too rather than restarting the clock.