apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <...@manyfish.co.uk>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Strawman at fixing disjoint process locking
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:42:29 GMT
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:31:48AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I took a look at the locking problem, and I think it can be fixed
> rather trivially.  This is a minor problem in that it only affects the
> case where the child doesn't share memory addresses - such as when
> happens by using apr_proc_create.  Hence, adding an 'apr_*_mutex_join'
> could solve the problem.

But that model only works for fcntl and flock mutexes: the other three
mechanisms on Unix (as currently implemented) simply cannot be used for
synchronisation between processes which did not inherit a particular
apr_proc_t structure.

I think that we're looking for solutions to a non-problem here: the
apr_proc_mutex interface is only useful on platforms with fork().  So
let's surround the header with #if APR_HAS_FORK and be done with it?

If you want to do portable synchronisation between two independent
processes, you can use files and apr_file_lock(), right?

joe


Mime
View raw message