That should be fine... It's one of the options I tested when I was working
up my patch.
Thanks,
-David
Jim Jagielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
om> cc:
Subject: Re: cvs commit:
apache-1.3/src/main http_main.c
10/04/2001
06:19 AM
Please respond
to dev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> -static void accept_mutex_init_tpfcore(pool *foo)
> -{
> -}
> +#define accept_mutex_init_tpfcore(x)
>
> static void accept_mutex_child_init_tpfcore(pool *p)
> {
> @@ -1100,7 +1098,7 @@
>
> accept_mutex_methods_s accept_mutex_tpfcore_s = {
> accept_mutex_child_init_tpfcore,
> - accept_mutex_init_tpfcore,
> + NULL,
> accept_mutex_on_tpfcore,
> accept_mutex_off_tpfcore,
> "tpfcore"
>
Ideally, what I should have done in the 1st place is:
#define accept_mutex_foo_bar NULL
for those nop's that way we would have avoided the above, and all the
structures would be semi-consistant, rather than a mix of real
functions and NULLs... I never documented that those mutex functions that
were null defines mapped to NULL entries in the struct... Worth holding
off 1.3.21 for this??
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither"
