httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <trawi...@bellsouth.net>
Subject question about the STATUS entry for lingering close
Date Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:45:45 GMT
>   * Fix lingering close
>       Status:

Does 2.0 regress one or more of the solutions in 1.3, or was some
improvement (other than async I/O) envisioned?

Where is the knowledge of when it is safe to use SO_LINGER?  I think 
this question applies to various configuration issues.  In 1.3, there
was a lot of hard-coded configuration based on the platform, so there
was a place to say "NO_LINGCLOSE" or "USE_FCNTL_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT" or
whatever.  We can *usually* probe for the ability to do this or that,
but we can't always probe for when something is broken and we don't
try to probe for the best possible mechanism.  We have the policy to
prefer one type of interprocess lock over another when it exists, but
there is no platform-specific policy for anything, right?

Any other issues?  I grepped through the last year or so of archives
and never saw anything like "Lingering close is broken in 2.0."  There
were some comments from Dean indicating that async I/O should be
used, but that isn't in the cards for 2.0 AFAIK.

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
     http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
          Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Mime
View raw message