apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: Proc mutex re-org
Date Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:42:28 GMT
--On Monday, June 14, 2004 8:02 AM -0400 rbb@rkbloom.net wrote:

> Read the patch and find out.   :-)  FCNTL is tested in the test program,
> and it _does_ work, but only as a fork() mutex.  flock was the one I
> chose, just because I needed one that would work as a proc_exec mutex,
> and fcntl doesn't.

Why wouldn't fcntl() work as a proc_exec mutex?  I don't see any reason why it 
shouldn't - my question was precisely because your patch ignored it.  And, in 
my strawman patch, fcntl() worked fine with modifications to how we acquire 
fcntl() - flock() isn't very portable or even very reliable on most OSes.

I do have some reservations with overloading the child_init in such a manner 
like you suggest.  It seems you are always going to re-open the file even if 
we are a fork()d child with the mutex variable still open from the parent. 
I'd rather we had a mechanism to only open the extra descriptor when it is 
absolutely required - i.e. the user explicitly wants proc_exec.  -- justin

View raw message