From: Karl Fogel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just use
APR_DIR_EMPTY
Btw, we needed the reverse sense. That is, if APR_EEXIST would have
indicated that the dir is not empty, then if we're not going to use
it, we should use APR_DIR_NOT_EMPTY
Well, I still dislike having the APR_E*, but this would be fine with me.
Ryan
--
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
645 Howard St. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
San Francisco, CA
-Original Message-
From: Karl Fogel
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I still dislike having the APR_E*, but this would be fine with me.
I agree it's a tiny bit odd, but semantically I think it's the
cleanest thing to do.
I will commit this in Subversion first, then move it over to APR.
Incidentally, I'm beginning to suspect that the root cause of the
problem wasn't the patch itself, but the fact that apr_file_inherit_set
is a noop.
BTW, why are the apr_*_inherit set functions declared void, not
apr_status_t?
Branko ibej wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
brane 2002/07/02
At 05:25 PM 7/2/2002, wrote:
Modified:threadproc/win32 proc.c
Log:
Reverting the 1.76 and 1.77 changes, because they didn't work.
The child handles weren't properly inheritable, and redirected command
output got lost in the bit bucket.
On Which Flavor of Win32? Tests on XP and 2K
At 06:21 PM 7/2/2002, Brane wrote:
Incidentally, I'm beginning to suspect that the root cause of the problem
wasn't the patch itself, but the fact that apr_file_inherit_set is a noop.
Yup. That's brokenness.
BTW, why are the apr_*_inherit set functions declared void, not apr_status_t?
Good
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 05:25 PM 7/2/2002, wrote:
Modified:threadproc/win32 proc.c
Log:
Reverting the 1.76 and 1.77 changes, because they didn't work.
The child handles weren't properly inheritable, and redirected command
output got lost in the bit bucket.
On Which Flavor of
Branko ibej wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
And you are now passing cloned parent-side handles again to the child
process which means the parent can't signal the file closed, because
closing the parent handle doesn't close the handle in the child process.
I'm not sure I understand this. If you
At 06:55 PM 7/2/2002, Brane wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
If there is a problem, it is NOT in this patch you reverted. It is probably
localized to apr_file_inherit_set(). That API didn't exist when the original
'make inheritable duplicates' was added.
The first order if business is to get
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\srclib\apr\file_io\win32\filedup.c(168) : error C2039:
'thlock' : is not a member of 'apr_file_t'
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\srclib\apr\file_io\win32\filedup.c(169) : error C2039:
'thlock' : is not a member of 'apr_file_t'
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\srclib\apr\file_io\win32\filedup.c(170) :
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\srclib\apr\file_io\win32\filedup.c(168) : error
C2039: 'thlock' : is not a member of 'apr_file_t'
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\srclib\apr\file_io\win32\filedup.c(169) : error
C2039: 'thlock' : is not a member of 'apr_file_t'
At 08:11 PM 7/2/2002, =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The correct fix was 10 minutes. A heads up to the list is ALWAYS warranted
unless vetoed code is checked into the repository.
Um. Sorry to disagree here, but the fix isn't entirely correct. You can't
use
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy
conversion to poll(), which doesn't have such overhead in the
interface.
This works for me with some testing (timeouts on read and write work
for me).
--- /tmp/sendrecv.c
Here's a patch for testproc.c that should tickle this particular problem. I
can't be 100% sure; I'm doing this at work, I only have an old version of APR,
and I can't update (getting timeouts).
I had to hack at testproc to make it run on Windows at all (have to have a .exe
extension on the
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
P.S. I am getting a say in the child's name, just not as big a say as
Kelly. :-)
As long as you don't name him/her void or apr_bloom_child or
something, you'll be fine. ;-)
That would never happen, coz it'd be obvious what the child
At 07:56 AM 7/3/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a patch for testproc.c that should tickle this particular problem. I
can't be 100% sure; I'm doing this at work, I only have an old version of APR,
and I can't update (getting timeouts).
As soon as I 'land' again I will give this the paces...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy
conversion to poll(), which doesn't have such overhead in the
interface.
This works for me with some testing
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy
conversion to poll(), which doesn't have such overhead in the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy
conversion to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy
conversion to poll(), which doesn't have such overhead in the
interface.
This works for me with some
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy
conversion to poll(), which doesn't have such overhead
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in
apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that FD_ZERO()
Ryan Bloom wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A little bird told me that
From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have either of you benchmarked with apr_poll() or are you assuming that
the problem exists?
Ryan
Sorry didn't answer you here... There definitely are extra instructions and
function calls involved with using apr_poll() in this case. I don't know the
exact number but I could find out. The
From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 July 2002 18:05
You are missing the point. If apr_poll() is to be useful to external
projects, then it must perform well. If it performs so poorly that we
refuse to use it inside of APR, then it couldn't possibly be useful to
external
Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have either of you benchmarked with apr_poll() or are you assuming that
the problem exists?
Ryan
Sorry didn't answer you here... There definitely are extra instructions and
function calls involved with using apr_poll() in this case. I don't
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
Sent: 03 July 2002 21:16
Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have either of you benchmarked with apr_poll() or are you assuming that
the problem exists?
Ryan
Sorry didn't answer you here...
31 matches
Mail list logo
