httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Life is hard, and then you die." <ron...@innovation.ch>
Subject Re: apr_lock
Date Fri, 10 Sep 1999 17:17:43 GMT

One day, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> 
> Not only is it possible, but it is just waiting to be done.  I actually
> have spoken to a couple of people about doing this, but I haven't gotten
> around to it yet.  I know it's a simple change right now, but I've been
> bogged down with other stuff lately.  Either wait a few weeks until I have
> time, or make the change yourself.

Sorry, didn't mean to push. I didn't realize this had already been
considered, and just thought I'd throw this in before the stuff got
finalized. No hurry.


  Cheers,

  Ronald


> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Life is hard, and then you die. wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I was just looking at apr_lock and noticed that ap_lock() was defined
> > as
> > 
> >   ap_status_t ap_lock(ap_lock_t *);
> > 
> > This seems to imply that only an exclusive lock can be acquired. Would
> > it be possible to instead implement the more general and useful
> > multiple-reader/single-writer scheme (as e.g. implemented in Ralf's mm
> > library)? I.e. something like
> > 
> >   typedef enum {APR_READ_ONLY, APR_READ_WRITE} ap_lockmode_e;
> >   ap_status_t ap_lock(ap_lock_t *, ap_lockmode_e);
> > 


Mime
View raw message