Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ames.greg@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.44.152 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=dmZ0b7h1bqro9fQw2NpghY+Vv8QUVlYd2qLdkQEP8uu0stcynY+p4XQk93YQObcEMO
         P96eC+4iYMZIbgjnUTDtfxpjhy8cWcKeM7ZIHeQdWFeMj6sQb8VEX6rJlWedzKlvteFZ
         tG0DSjm2emsDjxQgMdOpWqud/4lFZaFSBCHQM=
Message-ID: <ad8a87120810100731o5676af98tef0de5e400a7dd02@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:31:29 -0400
From: "Greg Ames" <ames.greg@gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: PR45605 and event MPM
In-Reply-To: <48EE77C6.3010305@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_114834_3841352.1223649089080"
References: <48EBEAB2.1090405@apache.org>
	 <ad8a87120810091353h57d578e7k206c05ae492f37c8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48EE77C6.3010305@apache.org>

------=_Part_114834_3841352.1223649089080
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> wrote:


> Does anybody see problems with this or are we still too worried about
> the correct handling of signed vs. unsigned variables by apr_atomic_XXXX
> to use this in a non experimental MPM?


signed vs unsigned doesn't bother me.  However, we should consider the lack
of APR native atomic support on various platforms by default.  I think we
still have to say --enable-nonportable-atomics to get a native compare &
swap type operation on x86 + gcc, maybe also on SPARC.  But is it rational
to worry about supporting 386s with binary distributions in 2008?  dunno
about the SPARC market.  This wasn't a concern for Event because it is
experimental.

I will take a look at the APR atomics and see if the operations that Event's
fdqueue is using are less supported than the atomics used in worker.

Greg

------=_Part_114834_3841352.1223649089080
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:rpluem@apache.org">rpluem@apache.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Does anybody see problems with this or are we still too worried about<br>
the correct handling of signed vs. unsigned variables by apr_atomic_XXXX<br>
to use this in a non experimental MPM?</blockquote></div><br>signed vs unsigned doesn&#39;t bother me.&nbsp; However, we should consider the lack of APR native atomic support on various platforms by default.&nbsp; I think we still have to say --enable-nonportable-atomics to get a native compare &amp; swap type operation on x86 + gcc, maybe also on SPARC.&nbsp; But is it rational to worry about supporting 386s with binary distributions in 2008?&nbsp; dunno about the SPARC market.&nbsp; This wasn&#39;t a concern for Event because it is experimental.<br>
<br>I will take a look at the APR atomics and see if the operations that Event&#39;s fdqueue is using are less supported than the atomics used in worker.&nbsp; <br><br>Greg<br><br><br></div>

------=_Part_114834_3841352.1223649089080--