apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amit Athavale <amit_athav...@persistent.co.in>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Strawman at fixing disjoint process locking
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:12:39 GMT
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.
> Here's my 2am approach for solving this - now the testglobalmutex 
> passes for
> FCNTL on Solaris.  The others would need 'stub' implementations for 
> join implemented - or their join could call create if no special work 
> is needed.
How this is different from _create() ?
Isn't (p1-create, p2-join) same as (p1-create, p2-create) ?

Correct me if I am wrong.

> But, now that I understand the problem, I still don't see why this 
> would be
> considered a 1.0 showstopper.

I agree now :)

If we recommend create-join sequence(which IMO serves same purpose)
instead of create-child_init sequence we could possibly go ahead with 
broken _child_init.


View raw message