Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 55167 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jun 2001 17:03:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 55145 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2001 17:03:46 -0000 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 10:03:21 -0700 From: Aaron Bannert To: new-httpd@apache.org Cc: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: mod_auth_digest.c locks -- question on usage Message-ID: <20010630100321.R2041@ebuilt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N mod_auth_digest.c (around line 366) is creating an APR_READWRITE lock with a scope of APR_LOCKALL (global) for the 'client_lock', but I see no way that APR could be supporting this concept. In any case, mod_auth_digest.c seems to be treating it as a simple global mutex-style lock, and never attempts to acquire 'client_lock' as a reader or a writer. I'm working on a new APR locks API that would replace the calls to apr_lock_*() in mod_auth_digest.c (and a few other places in httpd), but to that end I'd like to find out if this is an error, or if the author actually wanted a global rwlock. -aaron