apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Mansion" <ja...@wgold.demon.co.uk>
Subject RE: Win32 critsec
Date Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:59:34 GMT

This is really lame, but right now I'll attach.

The files are replacements for the ones from 0.9.4 with some bulk ifdefs.
I've tried to comment things somewhat.

I'm aware that time is somewhat tight given that there's a release in the
offing, but I'm hoping that Knowledgeable Types can review this and consider
whether its appropriate given its virginity.  Heck, it compiles.  Ideally
I'd like time to craft a test case but since I've never, ever, linked a file
to APR, that would take longer and I'd rather get it out into the open - and
crafting cases with a hope of triggering a race or deadlock is not easy, so
I think good old fashioned code review is the best defence.

Did I say I haven't tested it?  Wrote it on the train and while waiting for
my pizza to cook.  It does need testing.  But (sniff) clearly what's there
doesn't get much testing, so WTF.

But it can't be more broken than what's there, except maybe:
* this code does not work prior to NT4.

Hopefully, someone who knows C and Win32 better than I do can review it.
Haven't written any C for over 10 years. :-)

thread_cond.c (Win32 version)

I started with the originals (remove the #define JGM_FIX and they're still
there) and fixed them.  Please do your best to regard as trivial fixes.

I have to check with my umbrella company what happens when I code:
 - in non-charged time
 - on my personal laptop

It may be that I can sign any rights on this away anyway.  But I'll check.


PS sorry I can't do any of that unified diff stuff or use your problem
tracker, but these things are not so useful on the train with XP and visual
studio.  I'll have to figure them out sometime.  I only just started to use
CVS for the first time on this contract, so be gentle with me.

PPS I think RWLock is a Bad Thing too, but not actually broken in the same
way so its less urgent to fix.

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
Sent: 12 August 2004 21:58
To: James Mansion
Cc: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: Win32 critsec

At 02:49 PM 8/12/2004, James Mansion wrote:
>I'd like to offer a replacement for the broken critsec code.
>Who can I send it to for review?
>I've never contributed before, have filled no paperwork etc.  I work
>a contractor umbrella company and I'm at home rather than at a client site,
>so I don't think theer will be a problem getting paperwork - just a delay
>since I'm not a director etc.

Feel free to post your patches to the list, and/or attach them to the
appropriate bug report with the PatchAvailable keyword.  Both is probably
the surest way that they are considered.  We prefer diff -u3 style patches,
following the style guide http://www.apache.org/dev/styleguide.html

If this is a trivial bugfix, we don't require a CLA.  If you are providing
entirely new implementation, or submitting brand new code, we would ask
you to submit a Contributors License Agreement, and if you don't have
full authority to speak for what you do on your companies' time, also file
the Corp CLA... http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas

Instructions for faxing or mailing these documents is embedded in the
agreements themselves.

Please remember, the more focused and single purpose each patch
you offer is, the easier it is for the reviewers to grok and approve/commit.

Looking forward to your contributions!


View raw message