William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > >Moving the lb_limit to the end of the struct will not break > the binary > >compatibility. Correct? > > Yes, in the case of global_score, that would be safer. It > seems that the additional lb_score 's element point was better placed. > > If you changed worker_score, it would still have broken (or > if you change balancers in the future.) Agents reviewing the > scoreboard are presuming scoreboard_entry *psb can be > accessed as psb[0..n] and that -will- be broken with any > size/alignment change to the struct. >
I was afraid you've gonna said that. Those 3rd party... :). How about adding extra data to the end of the entire scoreboard withouth touching any existing structs or data? It will require an extra copy on child_init, but there will be no compatibility issues, thought. Will that rise any objections? MT.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
