On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:39:49PM +0530, Amit Athavale wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > >Looks good, thanks a lot Amit... patch against APR HEAD would be > >preferred though. There's no need for apr_shm_remove() to have an > >APR_ENOTIMPL case: the caller knows not to call this function for an > >anonymous segment. > > > So should APR_SUCCESS be return type by default?
Sorry, no, ignore me, you had it exactly right in your patch: it needs to return ENOTIMPL for the case where the platform has no name-based implementation, as your comment said. Leave it as it was ;) joe
