Hi,
We are not using APR_IMPLEMENT_ACCESSOR_X anywhere
in the code anymore. Do we want to get rid of it?
Sander
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:09:26AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
We are not using APR_IMPLEMENT_ACCESSOR_X anywhere
in the code anymore. Do we want to get rid of it?
Sure. -- justin
Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
Right now it's flock - sysvsem - fcntl - pthread.
I think it should be pthread - sysvsem - fcntl - flock, which
is what 1.3 has...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|]
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:49:32PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
Right now it's flock - sysvsem - fcntl - pthread.
I think it should be pthread - sysvsem - fcntl - flock, which
is what 1.3 has...
Now that we're more confident in
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:49:32PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think it should be pthread - sysvsem - fcntl - flock, which
is what 1.3 has...
+1. -- justin
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
Right now it's flock - sysvsem - fcntl - pthread.
I think it should be pthread - sysvsem - fcntl - flock, which
is what 1.3 has...
I realize everybody has jumped in and +1-ed you, but I
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
Right now it's flock - sysvsem - fcntl - pthread.
I think it should be pthread - sysvsem - fcntl - flock, which
is what 1.3 has...
I realize everybody has
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are people happy with the priority order of the accept mutex?
Right now it's flock - sysvsem - fcntl - pthread.
I think it should be pthread - sysvsem - fcntl - flock, which
Jeff Trawick wrote:
But proc_mutex.c has the below:
case APR_LOCK_DEFAULT:
#if APR_USE_FLOCK_SERIALIZE
new_mutex-inter_meth = apr_proc_mutex_unix_flock_methods;
#elif APR_USE_SYSVSEM_SERIALIZE
new_mutex-inter_meth =
