Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 41996 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2008 06:42:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jul 2008 06:42:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 44422 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jul 2008 06:42:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 44371 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jul 2008 06:42:25 -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 44360 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jul 2008 06:42:25 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:42:25 -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 (athena.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; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:41:32 +0000 Received: from [10.1.120.24] (shrek.rexursive.com [10.1.120.24]) by beauty.rexursive.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B34640330 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:41:57 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Changing the order of cleanup for some core objects From: Bojan Smojver To: APR Development List In-Reply-To: <1216707736.2754.146.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> References: <48843999.1010804@apache.org> <20080721093425.GA13566@redhat.com> <4884671A.8070401@apache.org> <1216707138.2754.142.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> <1216707736.2754.146.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:41:56 +1000 Message-Id: <1216708916.2754.148.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 16:22 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Nah, that wouldn't work if pool has been destroyed already. I'm trying > to avoid adding locking on all pool destruction, as you can see. Oh, and the patch that I sent was an incomplete version anyway :-( -- Bojan