apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/locks/unix crossproc.c locks.c proc_mutex.c
Date Thu, 04 Apr 2002 21:20:09 GMT
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> "sem_open("/ApR.whatever", O_CREAT, 0644,1)" returns ENOSYS on Linux
> (2.2.12 kernel).  I'll try to add an autoconf check for that.

Yeah... right now almost all the APR checks are just for existance
and not implementation... we should really fix that for those
that we expect to work (all the shared mem and semaphore and thread
stuff), but that's a lot of work (but the right way to do it).

> Beyond the issue mentioned above, why is a new lock mechanism
> suddenly so high in the priority list?  Aren't we throwing away a lot
> of past experience (1.3 and 2.0)?

Posix sems are new. The logic being that they are "better" than SysV
sems for those platforms that support both.
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

View raw message