apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1790296 - /apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c
Date Fri, 07 Apr 2017 12:35:18 GMT
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I still don't like the idea of <0 == infinite, but I'm too tired
> to discuss it anymore :)
>
> What this means, of course, is that instead of using the
> correct function calls for each situation, (acquire(), tryacquire(),)
> people instead will use the overloaded timedstuff, which to me
> is bad API. We are creating these from scratch, not adding additional
> functionality to something that already exists. :/

I can change it to immediate when <= 0, but then we won't be
consistent with apr_thread_cond_timedwait() (and
apr_{proc,global}_cond_timedwait() which I'd like to add too), and
also pretty all the underlying timed functions we use.

Treating <0 as immediate looks really misleading to me, but it seems
to be the current consensus...
May I ask more opinions/confirmations from dev@ on this before I do this?

Mime
View raw message