[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> It also occurs to me that we probably don't even need to manipulate the >>> slapd runqueue in persist mode, when si->si_conn is already set. I.e., >>> in that case we can only have gotten here because of a listener event, >>> and not because of a runqueue schedule. >> That is probably true. > > Right, my patch avoids that now. Having looked at it again I think replacing > the trylock with a regular lock is fine.
OK, reverted the trylock (which was put there in rev 1.376). I unfortunately don't remember what prompted that commit; certainly there was no ITS associated with it. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
