From dev-return-2054-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Wed May 09 10:44:15 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 57488 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2001 10:44:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 57082 invoked from network); 9 May 2001 10:43:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:43:22 +0200 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton To: Sander Striker Cc: APR Development List , rbb@covalent.net, elrond@samba-tng.org Subject: Re: APR memory systems Message-ID: <20010509124322.H16709@angua.rince.de> Mail-Followup-To: Sander Striker , APR Development List , rbb@covalent.net, elrond@samba-tng.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from striker@samba-tng.org on Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:52:51AM +0200 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > >From recent input on this list it is clear that the > current threadsafe_lock()/unlock() functions don't cut it. > We will need to work out how these functions should look. threadsafe_lock()/unlock() as a name is misleading. sharing memory between processes, requiring locking, is nothing to do with threads. there may be some code / techniques in samba that may be worth examining: this is not at all dis-similar to file locking, except it happens to be memory, not files. ... so they're shared, mmap'd, threaded, so what? it's all the same... :) lukes