apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] apr_lock.h update to remove/fix CROSS_PROCESS vs LOCKALL
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2001 19:10:14 GMT
+1.  Makes the code so much easier to understand.  -- justin

On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:30:59AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> As discussed earlier on new-httpd and dev@apr, the lock scope
> CROSS_PROCESS is not portable, where LOCKALL is. I've fixed
> that by simply removing CROSS_PROCESS. The scopes we have left use names
> that are overloaded and confusing (LOCKALL vs CROSS_PROCESS huh?)
> so I went ahead and dropped the whole thing in favor of something
> more consistent and disambiguous, the POSIXified names:
> 
> APR_PROCESS_PRIVATE -- (old INTRAPROCESS) synchronizes threads in the current
>     process.
> 
> APR_PROCESS_SHARED  -- (old CROSS_PROCESS *and* LOCKALL) synchronizes threads
>     across processes and their threads. Essentially acts as global lock
>     on all platforms.
> 
> 
> The two patches must be applied in order (apr first, then httpd) since
> one depends on the other. The httpd changes were simple string
> replacements, but I looked them over before submitting. The apr changes
> seemed to work fine with the various apr/test/ routines on my platform
> (linux 2.4), but I don't have access to all the platforms that this
> patch might affect.
> 
> -aaron


Mime
View raw message