Bojan Smojver
Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:03:04 -0700
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 11:11 +0200, Mladen Turk wrote: > If the user creates a subpool the problem will still be present because > this sub pool will be destroyed before the destructor is called. > Also any resource allocated from this pool will be destroyed in advance > to the destructor (since its registered first, it'll be called last), > while for apr_reslist_invalidate it won't. > Don't think that'll work. Given that reslist's code would then be in control of the pointer to the sub-pool in question through apr_res_t, it can always make sure that one of its internal cleanups resets that pointer to zero, so that destructor doesn't destroy the pool again (if that ever occurs). Essentially, the approach from that memcache patch and mod_dbd is implemented here internally by reslist. -- Bojan