Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030222164423.03570568@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:48:37 -0600
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: Fix for SSLMutex bogusness
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <p05210501ba7d5a40bdbe@[209.133.199.10]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:50 AM 2/22/2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>Of course for 2.1, but also for 2.0 as well... Right now, SSLMutex
>is pretty binary :)

Only one observation below, otherwise ++1 for both 2.0 and 2.1 customers
(Jim and I recently spent a week fighting solaris 9 pthread mutexes, extra 
backup options are *always* goodness!)

>     else {
>         return apr_pstrcat(cmd->pool, "Invalid SSLMutex argument ", 
>-                           arg, NULL);
>+                           arg, " (", ssl_valid_ssl_mutex_string, ")", NULL);

the idea here was most cool, but I'd add to the "(" comment that

>+                           arg, " (options valid on this platform are: ",
>+                           ssl_valid_ssl_mutex_string, ")", NULL);

Bill