httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: [Patch] Reintroduce CREATE_SUSPENDED?
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:23:25 GMT
I don't think we need the CREATE_SUSPENDED anymore.  The reason I added it in the first
place was related to creating the exit event using a name based on the child pid.  The
code you added does not use a named exit_event, and seems to do the job just fine the way
it is (once we sniffed out that funky bug related to closing the stderr handle).

Keeping the Sleep() in the parent right after the creatprocess might still be a good idea
to avoid what looks to be a Windows bug with the child improperly inheriting sockets
opened in the parent. Current HEAD works flawlessly for me (with the exception of a 3
handle leak upon each restart).

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: [Patch] Reintroduce CREATE_SUSPENDED?


> Attached is a patch that reintroduced the CREATE_SUSPENDED.  It doesn't
> resume the thread until the pipe is full of our handles for the child.
> It must pause while the child starts, before duplicating the listeners.
> For the moment that's still sleep (1000) - I'm thinking if we used
> PulseEvent on the child's event handle - the child could pulse it itself
> once it is awake in the init_child code.  Pulse will reset itself, the
> child can go off to processing.  The parent can resume sending the
> listeners once it hears that event pulsed.  It saves us wasting another
> event for this purpose.
>
> Just a thought.  The code also cleans up just a bit of FirstBill's
> hShareError code and some other handle cleanups, so they are all unwound
> and unwound correctly upon failure.
>
> Bill
>


Mime
View raw message