httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] apr_lock.h update to remove/fix CROSS_PROCESS vs LOCKALL
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:21:48 GMT
Aaron Bannert <aaron@ebuilt.com> writes:

> As discussed earlier on new-httpd and dev@apr, the lock scope
> CROSS_PROCESS is not portable, where LOCKALL is. I've fixed
> that by simply removing CROSS_PROCESS. The scopes we have left use names
> that are overloaded and confusing (LOCKALL vs CROSS_PROCESS huh?)
> so I went ahead and dropped the whole thing in favor of something
> more consistent and disambiguous, the POSIXified names:

Sorry to bring this up again, but today I was showing someone a
program of mine when I realized how dependent it is on the current
CROSS_PROCESS semantics.  It won't work with LOCKALL semantics.

(This program shows me which lock mechanisms block out other threads
in the same process.  I'd be lost without it :) )

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

Mime
View raw message