Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 14955 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2004 14:15:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2004 14:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 92297 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2004 14:16:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 92215 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2004 14:16:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 92200 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2004 14:16:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:55:18 -0400 (EDT) From: To: Justin Erenkrantz cc: Subject: Re: Proc mutex re-org In-Reply-To: <9E1D5289E884FD662B37AC82@uio-8021x-153-0-25-58.uio.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N It could work, you are correct. I wasn't trying to fix that problem, I was trying to get _any_ mutexes to work with proc_create. If we have other bugs that some mutexes do work and others don't, then thats fine, but those are other bugs that can easily be worked out whenever. The API is what I cared about fixing. Regardless, my time is now gone for this issue. The new kid isn't sleeping yet, and I am back at my day job. So, I am really against trying to release 1.0 without a fix for this, but I no longer have time to work on it. Ryan On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --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 >