apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Problem with apr_proc_mutex
Date Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:48:48 GMT
Moving this discussion over to dev@apr... reply there ;-)

At 11:28 AM 3/27/2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> 3. failing that, we have a bug in APR_LOCK_POSIX that the fname passed
>>    is ignored, so a random one is invented, but a patch at line 129 of
>>    proc_mutex.c could make that hassle disappear.
>Well, I wouldn't consider it a 'bug'. proc_mutex_posix_create ignores
>fname because of some restrictions on what it can be, and some
>OS dependency on those restrictions. I will concur that maybe
>what we should do is 1st try fname and if that fails do what
>we do now (with the required logging to inform the person). If
>we all concur that that would be a Good Thing, I can make the
>required minor adjustments :)

Or we do what win32 does for posix, and fold invalid '/'s and other
restricted characters into underbars.  Or I was just musing... what
if we MD5 hash the win32/posix names into something short and
sweet for the lifetime of the mutex?


View raw message