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/locks/unix crossproc.c locks.c proc_mutex.c
Date Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:39:41 GMT
jim@apache.org writes:

> jim         02/04/04 10:33:57
>   Modified:    .        CHANGES configure.in
>                include  apr.h.in apr_global_mutex.h apr_lock.h
>                         apr_proc_mutex.h
>                include/arch/unix locks.h proc_mutex.h
>                locks/unix crossproc.c locks.c proc_mutex.c
>   Log:
>   Support for Posix semaphores for locking has been added. This uses
>   named semaphores (sem_open). Because there are a few different
>   implementations around, this uses the lowest common denominator in
>   creating the semaphore name. As far as its location in DEFAULT
>   priority, it's placed between pthread and sysvsem. Tested on
>   Darwin (in which it's the new default) and Solaris.

"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.

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)?

Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message