httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Standardize AcceptMutex config
Date Thu, 20 Sep 2001 04:40:23 GMT
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:35:40PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I agree that having them inconsistent is incredibly silly.  I am wondering
> why you think the 1.3 one makes more sense.  I have told you why I think
> calling out that it is a process makes more sense to me.  I am trying to
> understand your point of view.

Since all of the other alternatives (fcntl, flock, etc) are also
process-level, it follows that any pthread accept mutex should be 
in a similar vein.  It wouldn't make sense to have an intraprocess
lock option when all of the others are inherently interprocess
locks.  (Remember that fcntl can't be used to lock within a single 
process.)  Not to mention that we, as a group, don't like single
process MPMs - so having the AcceptMutex be an intraprocess lock 
isn't really feasible as a *common* MPM option.  Therefore,
I think there is no need to make the unnecessary distinction - the 
context in which this mutex is used indicates that it should be an
interprocess lock.

It is something that I can go either way on - I like pthread
better.  But, we should definitely be consistent.  -- justin


Mime
View raw message