Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 927 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2001 15:29:38 -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 721 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2001 15:29:33 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU: jcw5q owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:29:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: Justin Erenkrantz cc: Subject: Re: file_setaside() In-Reply-To: <20010626082254.I25512@ebuilt.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Why? Don't we need to create a duplicate file handle? What am I > missing? -- justin Not for file_setaside() we don't. All file_setaside() cares about is that the apr_file_t and its associated locks and stuff get put into the appropriate pool. The apr_os_file_t file handle that is referred to by the apr_file_t knows nothing about pools (it's just an int or HANDLE or HFILE or whatever). So we can keep the same apr_os_file_t and just wrap a new apr_file_t around it. No call to the OS's dup() is needed. Make sense? --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA