httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sameer <>
Subject Re: note_cleanups_for_buff vs. note_cleanups_for_fd
Date Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:32:01 GMT
	Hm. So we're trying to decide what to do for SH 2.1 which is
based on Apache 1.2.3. We could either do cleanups_for_fd like Apache
1.3, or cleanups_for_buff correctly. So you're saying that if we did
cleanups_for_buff cleanups_for_buff should be called a bpushfd? Seemed
to me like it sould be called at bcreate.

> I actually babbled about this a bit.  The question I posed to the list was
> "why aren't we bflushing on a buff cleanup?"  Ben asked why would we want
> to do that and my comment was that "well, fclose() does that, and we clean
> that up properly, now that we're using buffs for CGIs we might run into
> troubles".
> I did change bclose() to use pclose()/pclosesocket(), and in the process
> did some serious race condition cleanup on the proxy (the other big BUFF
> user).  It is theoretically possible to do a proper buff cleanup routine
> now ... but it has to be done during bpushfd() and you'll have to kill
> cleanups (sock or fd) because the callers are all written to register
> cleanups for the fds they pass in.
> It's a bit of a mess.
> The proper solution, imho, is to have hierarchical cleanups.  Then a BUFF
> cleanup could exist which only does a bflush(), because you could dicate
> that the buff cleanup run before the fd/sock cleanup.  In this case the
> caller still uses popenf or psocket to get the fds for a BUFF, and does a
> bpushfd on them.  But it doesn't have to dink around
> registering/unregistering the cleanups for the fd.
> I can imagine cases where you want the bflush() to happen but you don't
> want the socket to be closed. 
> The alloc.c cleanup code already works the way we need -- cleanups are run
> in LIFO order.  But this is not documented as a feature of the API.  This
> still isn't perfect, but might be good enough.  (Consider the case: 
> psocket(), bcreate(), bpushfd(), then the dufus does a kill_cleanups on
> the socket, and registers cleanups again ... for what reason I can't
> imagine, but it's still a possibility.) 
> Dean
> On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:
> > 	Since Dean integrated the C2 unbuffered CGI stuff, he fixed it
> > because the spawn_child_err_buff function wasn't calling
> > note_cleanups. I am now looking at this code and wondering why you're
> > calling note_cleanups_for_fd rather than creating a new
> > note_cleanups_for_buff -- shouldn't there be a few more things done to
> > clean up a buff than to clean up a plain fd?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-986-8770
> > President					FAX:     510-986-8777
> > C2Net
> >
> > 

Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-986-8770
President					FAX:     510-986-8777

View raw message