Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81775 invoked from network); 12 May 2007 01:03:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 May 2007 01:03:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 13792 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2007 01:03:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 13745 invoked by uid 500); 12 May 2007 01:03:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 13734 invoked by uid 99); 12 May 2007 01:03:06 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:03:06 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of bojan@rexursive.com designates 203.171.74.242 as permitted sender) Received: from [203.171.74.242] (HELO beauty.rexursive.com) (203.171.74.242) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:02:59 -0700 Received: from [172.27.0.24] (shrek.rexursive.com [172.27.0.24]) by beauty.rexursive.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59184038E; Sat, 12 May 2007 11:02:37 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Regarding apr_file_writev() and locking... From: Bojan Smojver To: Joe Orton Cc: APR Development List In-Reply-To: <20070511145840.GC13076@redhat.com> References: <1178854755.29406.56.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> <20070511145840.GC13076@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 11:02:37 +1000 Message-Id: <1178931757.29406.78.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 15:58 +0100, Joe Orton wrote: > Yes, that looks necessary. Thanks, cool. Will implement. Honestly, even apr_file_flush() looks a bit suspect to me. > Yup. BTW can you add CHANGES entries (on both 1.2.x and 0.9.x branches) > listing the PR 40963 fix? Will do, together with the above. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Bojan