httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: relatively minor 2.1 API change
Date Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:26:36 GMT
That scares me from a win32 perspective; fyi.  apr_os_thread_t
is a HANDLE, an object meaningless outside the scope of a specific
process.  If Win32 goes 2x ++ processes, this data doesn't help.
But obviously, apr_thread_t is a complex structure, so it's not
the right choice either.  Perhaps a straightforward int thread
and process id?  Do these actually get used (as opposed to displayed
or compared)?

Bill

At 02:00 PM 3/4/2005, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:15:25 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr.
><wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> At 04:20 AM 3/4/2005, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> >worker_score in scoreboard.h needs a pid_t field.
>> 
>> As long as you store the pid:tid atom, I'm +1.  Quite right,
>> those tid's can become somewhat meaningless out of context.
>
>already has tid
>
>struct worker_score {
>    int thread_num;
>#if APR_HAS_THREADS
>    apr_os_thread_t tid;
>#endif
>
>I'll do something like
>
>struct worker_score {
>    int thread_num;
>    pid_t pid;         /* With some MPMs (e.g., worker) this can occasionally be
>                           * different than the pid_t stored in the
>process_score.
>                           */
>#if APR_HAS_THREADS
>    apr_os_thread_t tid;
>#endif


Mime
View raw message