Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:55:17 -0700
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com>
To: Jeff Trawick <trawick@attglobal.net>
Cc: Aaron Bannert <aaron@ebuilt.com>, dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: CROSS_PROCESS vs. LOCK_ALL
Message-ID: <20010629095516.T26239@ebuilt.com>
References: <20010625171229.U10809@ebuilt.com>
 <m38zibxw8l.fsf@rdu88-250-179.nc.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <m38zibxw8l.fsf@rdu88-250-179.nc.rr.com>;
 from trawick@attglobal.net on Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:15:54AM -0400

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:15:54AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Aaron Bannert <aaron@ebuilt.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > sorry to rekindle this fire, but I want to get this settled and move on.
> > 
> > 
> > In my previous posts I said that I do not see why there are both
> > APR_CROSS_PROCESS and APR_LOCK_ALL semantics in APR's lock
> > routines. Instead I'd like to see APR_LOCK_ALL go away, and
> > APR_CROSS_PROCESS to provide unconditional cross-process locking
> > regardless of the underlying platform.
> > 
> > The problem is that an APR_CROSS_PROCESS lock will behave differently
> > depending on the platform implementation, and this goes against the
> > "portable" part of APR.
> 
> I don't have a problem with this.  Sorry for being stupid before :)

I can commit something to APR that tosses APR_LOCKALL - this makes the
locking code a little simpler.  However, httpd-2.0 has some instances of
APR_LOCKALL.  I can post a patch to new-httpd that switches all of those 
to APR_CROSS_PROCESS.  Ideally, someone with commit access to both
repositories can apply both of them at the same time.  -- justin