I disagree with this patch. If we are getting failures on locks
then we have a bug somewhere and I'd rather not see us cover up
the problem by decreasing the verbosity.
-aaron
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:18:07PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> trawick 02/03/05 13:18:07
>
> Modified: server/mpm/worker worker.c
> Log:
> failures on the accept mutex are common at restart time, so be smart
> about the log level and use APLOG_DEBUG if we're restarting
>
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.84 +14 -2 httpd-2.0/server/mpm/worker/worker.c
>
> Index: worker.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/mpm/worker/worker.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.83
> retrieving revision 1.84
> diff -u -r1.83 -r1.84
> --- worker.c 5 Mar 2002 21:01:24 -0000 1.83
> +++ worker.c 5 Mar 2002 21:18:07 -0000 1.84
> @@ -622,7 +622,13 @@
>
> if ((rv = SAFE_ACCEPT(apr_proc_mutex_lock(accept_mutex)))
> != APR_SUCCESS) {
> - ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_EMERG, rv, ap_server_conf,
> + int level = APLOG_EMERG;
> +
> + if (ap_scoreboard_image->parent[process_slot].generation !=
> + ap_scoreboard_image->global->running_generation) {
> + level = APLOG_DEBUG; /* common to get these at restart time */
> + }
> + ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, level, rv, ap_server_conf,
> "apr_proc_mutex_lock failed. Attempting to shutdown "
> "process gracefully.");
> signal_workers();
> @@ -694,7 +700,13 @@
> }
> if ((rv = SAFE_ACCEPT(apr_proc_mutex_unlock(accept_mutex)))
> != APR_SUCCESS) {
> - ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_EMERG, rv, ap_server_conf,
> + int level = APLOG_EMERG;
> +
> + if (ap_scoreboard_image->parent[process_slot].generation !=
> + ap_scoreboard_image->global->running_generation) {
> + level = APLOG_DEBUG; /* common to get these at restart time */
> + }
> + ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, level, rv, ap_server_conf,
> "apr_proc_mutex_unlock failed. Attempting to "
> "shutdown process gracefully.");
> signal_workers();
>
>
>
