apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Strawman at fixing disjoint process locking
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2004 13:12:34 GMT
At 04:31 AM 6/4/2004, 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.

Now that proposal I like.  We will still need one flag, however, and I'd
suggest APR_LOCK_DEFAULT_NAMED, to insist to APR that it choose
a lockmech, appropriate to the platform, which will take the fname and
create a joinable mutex.  If this flag isn't passed, and no specific locking
mechansim is requested, APR is free to use any anonymous and therefore
unjoinable mechanism it prefers in apr_global_mutex_create().

Bill



Mime
View raw message