apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <jwool...@virginia.edu>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/memory/unix apr_pools.c
Date Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:28:31 GMT
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 striker@apache.org wrote:

>   ===================================================================
>   RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/memory/unix/apr_pools.c,v
>   retrieving revision 1.196
>   retrieving revision 1.197
>   diff -u -r1.196 -r1.197
>   --- apr_pools.c	28 May 2003 04:39:42 -0000	1.196
>   +++ apr_pools.c	18 Jul 2003 23:10:04 -0000	1.197
>   @@ -856,7 +856,7 @@
>    #if APR_HAS_THREADS
>            apr_thread_mutex_t *mutex;
>
>   -        if ((mutex = apr_allocator_mutex_get(allocator)) != NULL)
>   +        if ((mutex = apr_allocator_mutex_get(parent->allocator)) != NULL)
>                apr_thread_mutex_lock(mutex);
>    #endif /* APR_HAS_THREADS */

Yes, definitely correct.

Though what about line 864, which says:

    pool->sibling->ref = &pool->sibling;

Are the pool->sibling pointers uniformly protected by the pool->parent
mutex?  I haven't investigated all of the implications yet, but it seems
like that might cause problems as well.

--Cliff

Mime
View raw message