httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: SINGLE_LISTEN_ACCEPT_NOMUTEX
Date Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:21:17 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> It describes the OS, not the implementation.
> 
> So the OS supports safe unserialized accepts; if Apache needs them for
> other reasons is a different matter.
> 

You're missing the point... Right now, it doesn't make sense to
have S_U_A and the various mutex options for the same OS, since
one "implies" that accept mutexing isn't needed and they other
"describes" how it's done (in other words, there is little
implied difference between SAFE_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT and
NO_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT). This is confusing... SAFE_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT
is only valid in the single-listen case. So the #define
should clearly state that.


-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message