httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/modules/mpm/prefork prefork.c
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:51:57 GMT

> > Does that mean that the most efficient lock is no lock at all?  That
isn't
> > up to APR to implement.  APR implements a locking scheme, it is up to the
> > application/platform to decide if that scheme is a good choice or
> > not.
> 
> No, I meant something else:
> 
> There is no APR equivalent of what used to be inside
> USE_USLOCK_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT and USE_TPF_CORE_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT in
> prefork.c.  This was code to make a system-specific syscall to use a
> system-specific type of mutex.  I just meant that SGI and TPF folks
> could add code to APR to map APR locks onto those primitives.  Until
> that time, SGI and TPF must use fcntl, flock, sysvsem, or whatever
> else APR currently implements. 

Ahhhh.  This makes sense to me now.  Thank you for the clarification.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message