apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: APR_HAS_CREATE_LOCKS_NP not defined where it should be
Date Sat, 29 Dec 2001 22:49:34 GMT
Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org> writes:

> On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 04:48:12PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > > > I would prefer moving to a situation where the function that allows
> > > > you to specify the implementation is always available and
> > > > APR_LOCK_DEFAULT is always available.
> > > > 
> > > > One way to do that:
> > > > 
> > > > . get rid of apr_lock_create_np() and apr_proc_mutex_create_np()
> > > > 
> > > > . add new required parameter to apr_lock_create() and
> > > >   apr_proc_mutex_create() for specifying implementation (expecting
> > > >   most callers to pass APR_LOCK_DEFAULT)
> > 
> > This patch would seem to implement this:
> 
> ++1 (in concept, untested).
> 
> Let's get this committed, work out the kinks and go with it.

will-do, probably in next half-hour

-- 
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net | PGP public key at web site:
       http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
             Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Mime
View raw message