apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <...@manyfish.co.uk>
Subject Re: apr_shm_attach() and APR_EEXIST
Date Fri, 28 May 2004 12:30:08 GMT
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:39:49PM +0530, Amit Athavale wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
> >Looks good, thanks a lot Amit... patch against APR HEAD would be
> >preferred though.  There's no need for apr_shm_remove() to have an
> >APR_ENOTIMPL case: the caller knows not to call this function for an
> >anonymous segment.
> >
> So should APR_SUCCESS be return type by default?

Sorry, no, ignore me, you had it exactly right in your patch: it needs
to return ENOTIMPL for the case where the platform has no name-based
implementation, as your comment said.  Leave it as it was ;)


View raw message