On 9/13/05, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:53:38 -0700 John wrote:.There is some support for multi-thread resource locking. See the mt_supportheader and code, and grep for 'snmp_res_' in the code. Don't know the state ofthe code, however. But it should server as a sta
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:53:38 -0700 John wrote:
JM> Yeah, using semaphores/mutex's to lock access to the list is an option,
JM> but the intial thread safety design using the single session API seemed to
JM> intentionally avoid that. I suspect thats because sempahores/mutex's
JM> aren't well standard
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:53:38 -0700, John McCaskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
John> Yeah, using semaphores/mutex's to lock access to the list is an
John> option, but the intial thread safety design using the single
John> session API seemed to intentionally avoid that.
There a number of places
Ugh... the situation is what I feared :) See comments inline...On 9/9/05, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 09:15 -0700, John McCaskey wrote:> I was under the impression from reading
> http://www.net-snmp.org/docs/README.thread.html that as long as I> stuck to the Single
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 09:15 -0700, John McCaskey wrote:
> I was under the impression from reading
> http://www.net-snmp.org/docs/README.thread.html that as long as I
> stuck to the Single Session API for forming and sending requests I
> would be ok. However, it appears that while this is true for
