On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:00:42AM +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> 2010/1/26 Graham Dumpleton <[email protected]>:
>> 2010/1/26 Giel van Schijndel <[email protected]>:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:10:42PM +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>>> Let me know how it goes. I'll review the code a bit more and perhaps
>>>>> also include my other changes to make it more robust. The potential
>>>>> problems in it may explain some of the other very rare problems on
>>>>> Linux platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Running it for 30 minutes now. No problems so far. Last time I had
>>>> timeout problems immediately, I'm guessing caused by a dead lock which
>>>> that patch fixes.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, I'll leave it running for now until problems arise (in which
>>>> case I'll gladly notify you again).
>>>
>>> Some time later, and now it seems that the daemon crashed. At least I
>>> think it must have, considering that it didn't leave anything in the
>>> logs, except for timeouts around when the daemon must have gone. No
>>> coredump either.
>>
>> I'll give you an updated patch shortly then which includes the other
>> changes I figured are required to make it more robust on platforms
>> where conditional wait can actually return even though condition not
>> satisfied.
> 
> Revert that prior patch and try this one instead:

No immediate regressions so far. I.e. it functions properly within a few
minutes after restarting Apache with it.

-- 
With kind regards,
Giel van Schijndel
- Interlink <www.il.fontys.nl>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to