https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60296
--- Comment #13 from Eric Covener <[email protected]> --- > Another question that raises is, why to use fcntl as a backing mechanism for > the > LDAP locking ? If the lock was supposed to be guaranteed among different > nodes, > then backing the lock in a file, IF the name was based also on the instance > id, > which in this case is not, it could make sense. But in a shared-threaded only > environment, why ? the locking is only meant to be among the N children of a single instance / parent process. You should find the PID here is the parent pid. So I think this aspect is OK. I have seen fcntl related errors on other OS'es, where APR might use it by default, related to EDEADLOCK being returned when two unrelated threads use two unrelated fcntl mutexes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
