You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au> on 2001/10/21 08:37:05 UTC
Re: cvs commit: apr/locks/win32 proc_mutex.c
On 19 Oct 2001 23:25:28 -0000, aaron@apache.org wrote:
>aaron 01/10/19 16:25:28
>
> Modified: include apr_portable.h
> locks/beos proc_mutex.c
> locks/netware proc_mutex.c
> locks/os2 proc_mutex.c
> locks/unix proc_mutex.c
> locks/win32 proc_mutex.c
> Log:
> Implement portable accessors for proc mutex. These are equivalent to
> apr_os_lock_get/set, but they work for apr_proc_mutex_t types instead.
>
> I did my best to implement these on non-Unix platforms from how I saw
> them implemented for apr_os_lock_get/set, but on those platforms they
> are untested.
Well, this actually breaks things on OS/2 (& probably Win32), not because
there's anything wrong with it but because proc mutexes aren't yet
implemented on either platform so there's no os handle in the
apr_proc_mutex_t to get/set.
I guess I should actually implement them, so are they supposed to be like
APR_LOCKALL or APR_CROSS_PROCESS locks?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apr/locks/win32 proc_mutex.c
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
> > Implement portable accessors for proc mutex. These are equivalent to
> > apr_os_lock_get/set, but they work for apr_proc_mutex_t types instead.
> >
> > I did my best to implement these on non-Unix platforms from how I saw
> > them implemented for apr_os_lock_get/set, but on those platforms they
> > are untested.
>
> Well, this actually breaks things on OS/2 (& probably Win32), not because
> there's anything wrong with it but because proc mutexes aren't yet
> implemented on either platform so there's no os handle in the
> apr_proc_mutex_t to get/set.
Hmm.. Should I #ifdef them out for now?
> I guess I should actually implement them, so are they supposed to be like
> APR_LOCKALL or APR_CROSS_PROCESS locks?
APR_CROSS_PROCESS == apr_proc_mutex_t
We don't have an analog for APR_LOCKALL, and it is still undecided if
we need/want one.
-aaron