Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <3FD5AC73.3080309@attglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 06:05:23 -0500
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@attglobal.net>
Reply-To: trawick@attglobal.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: REPOST: [PATCH] add timeout to apr_reslist
References: <20031208192257.9E6088CFB8@mailhub.mail.Virginia.EDU>
 <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312081445480.25795@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0312081445480.25795@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cliff Woolley wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Mladen Turk wrote:
> 
> 
>>Can someone review this patch and eventually respond if there are
>>any chances to get this patch committed to apr-util.
>>If not we'll make something different then.

+1 (concept)

> I think it would have to be called apr_reslist_timeout_set() rather than
> apr_reslist_set_timeout(), but in general I'm not opposed.

agreed

> In this block:
> 
> +        if (reslist->timeout) {
> +            if (apr_thread_cond_timedwait(reslist->avail,
> +                reslist->listlock, reslist->timeout) != APR_SUCCESS)
> +                apr_thread_mutex_unlock(reslist->listlock);
> +                return APR_EAGAIN;
> +        }
> 
> Is it really correct to return APR_EAGAIN regardless of the return value
> of apr_thread_cond_timedwait()?  Or is that a bug caused by a lack of
> {}'s?  This is why we tend to say that you should always use {}'s, even if
> the conditional block is only one line long.

if not returning whatever apr_thread_cond_timedwait() returned, why not return 
APR_TIMEUP instead of APR_EAGAIN?  but like Cliff said I wonder why the retval 
of apr_thread_cond_timewait() isn't appropriate?