Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 10193 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jul 2001 06:14:13 -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 10130 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 06:14:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:13:49 -0700 From: Aaron Bannert To: new-httpd@apache.org, dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: Seperating cleanups from memory allocations, WAS: RE: Terminating threads in a process Message-ID: <20010717231349.P23346@ebuilt.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from dean@arctic.org on Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 08:33:09PM -0700 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 On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 08:33:09PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote: [snip] > p.s. maybe this example will help highlight why apr_lock_t is far too > generic and there should be a more lightweight thread only mutex that > doesn't require lots of extra memory allocation? Oh don't get me started on that again... ;) I'd LOVE to get some really lightweight (intraprocess) mutexes into APR... Something akin to true POSIX mutexes would be fantastic. -aaron