|
I share your enjoyment.
Should I then go ahead and commit my patch to the 2.1 tree?
Thanks, JJ
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/04 3:41 PM >>> Jean-Jacques Clar wrote:
> >Can you help me/us understand the following a little better? > Let's look at al the cases where the cleanup function is called or the > object is accessed: > _The cleanup bit could only be set under the protection of the global > mutex_. This is critical. Thanks for the summary. This helps a lot. > _open_entity()_ > mutex is locking access to object. The object is still in cache which > implies that > the cleanup bit is not set, refcount is then incremented preventing > cleanup, > and pool cleanup is registered before releasing the lock. Bill S. told me that open_entity() is the normal find function. I didn't realize it was mutexed before. Just thought other cache newbies might want to know. > Am I the only one having an increase in brain pulsations? No. But I enjoy this kind of stuff. Most of my increased pulsations are due to not looking at mod_mem_cache before. Greg |
- Re: [PATCH2] Re: Seg fault: race conditions in mod_mem_c... Jean-Jacques Clar
- Re: [PATCH2] Re: Seg fault: race conditions in mod_... Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH2] Re: Seg fault: race conditions in mod_... Jean-Jacques Clar
- Re: [PATCH2] Re: Seg fault: race conditions in mod_... Jean-Jacques Clar
- Re: [PATCH2] Re: Seg fault: race conditions in ... Bill Stoddard
- [PATCH] Re: Seg fault: race conditions in m... Bill Stoddard
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Seg fault: race conditi... Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Seg fault: race conditi... Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH] Re: Seg fault: race conditi... Greg Ames
- Re: [PATCH2] Re: Seg fault: race conditions in ... Greg Ames
