apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr STATUS
Date Wed, 26 Dec 2001 02:47:12 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 08:19:19PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > > I'd like to see this as a lock creation option.  Something like
> > > a flag - say, APR_LOCK_VERIFY or some such.  I don't think we should
> > > do the acquire/release unless asked for by the caller.  I think
> > > this might mean changing or extending the lock creation APIs -
> > > thoughts?  -- justin
> > 
> > Why would it need to be an option?  Are you concerned about the
> > performance?
> Not really the performance, but rather the fact of doing a lock
> acquisition and release during creation time strikes me the
> wrong way.  I'd prefer that the caller indicate that it is okay
> to do that if we must (and the accept mutex in httpd can flag 
> this).  But, I'm not going to be a stickler about this because
> to do it my way would mean modifying the API.  -- justin

Other than performance, why should the caller care?  The lock can't
block.  Unbeknownst to the caller we or libc get locks on other

Still curious,

Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net | PGP public key at web site:
             Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message