Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (idunn.apache.osuosl.org: domain gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.232 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: good
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=K/R2yOlG7b+wACirePu7u0ihE/aGByN1/PTaMV6Z1a+x4kfHGdBSadBS2CvDs434o2nfvgdOs05nvBVHZk4ygNkoG7f7kOKW2Z6Wdddaf3XkoPytm5YiJNKGs1y1Dw2Upw/Kiro68APBIlZHZ+7KnXNWO2o/vtoVsoG0kjPk7F0=
Message-ID: <7edfeeef0609120740l5b9635dcq58bdc660fcc5734@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:40:18 -0400
From: "Garrett Rooney" <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net>
Sender: rooneg@gmail.com
To: "Bojan Smojver" <bojan@rexursive.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with DSOs and Pools
Cc: dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <1158025022.14644.2.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <7edfeeef0608110942h8caf669t96585359a5c61f17@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7edfeeef0608171757j4131d288oe26737575002bef2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060818111023.kc5pzml7kkskks0w@www.rexursive.com>
	 <7edfeeef0608171812h548db326y9545af1a6ef68ec9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060818120728.gkpgt2988w0sgc4g@www.rexursive.com>
	 <20060818122208.subwmzrbuo4kwkow@www.rexursive.com>
	 <20060818141101.0mpavdlr42sw84oc@www.rexursive.com>
	 <20060911111637.biyr9nwj2880o8k4@www.rexursive.com>
	 <7edfeeef0609110748oa905ee1o759dc81a568b2be3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1158025022.14644.2.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>

On 9/11/06, Bojan Smojver <bojan@rexursive.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 10:48 -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > If we're going to go
> > based off of a NULL pool argument, I'd prefer to allocate out of a
> > known to be safe global pool, which we can create as part of
> > apr_initialize, then cleanups will happen normally at shutdown time.
>
> OK, no worries.
>
> I guess we can just use the global pool itself, right? We just need to
> have mutex to prevent multiple callers from fiddling with the global
> pool at the same time. Or maybe such a thing already exists... (haven't
> looked at the code yet).

I would prefer to leave the global pool alone, and just create a
separate subpool and mutex around that, since that keeps the global
pool isolated to apr_pools.c, rather than making it accessed from
multiple parts of the source tree.

-garrett