Re: cvs commit: apr/locks/unix proc_mutex.c

[Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>]

wrowe@apache.org wrote:

> wrowe       2003/08/06 16:54:31
> 
>   Modified:    locks/unix proc_mutex.c
>   Log:
>     Introduce the proc_mutex_no_tryacquire stub, returning APR_ENOTIMPL,
>     for all unimplemented trylock vectors.  Prevents us from simply
>     segfaulting when a given proc_mutex style does not support trylock.
>   
What's wrong with segfaulting? Better to segfault and know unambiguously 
that the function is broken than forget to check a return code and think 
the function is fine?  My .02. You're call.

Bill

Re: cvs commit: apr/locks/unix proc_mutex.c

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 08:28 AM 8/7/2003, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>wrowe@apache.org wrote:
>
>>wrowe       2003/08/06 16:54:31
>>  Modified:    locks/unix proc_mutex.c
>>  Log:
>>    Introduce the proc_mutex_no_tryacquire stub, returning APR_ENOTIMPL,
>>    for all unimplemented trylock vectors.  Prevents us from simply
>>    segfaulting when a given proc_mutex style does not support trylock.
>>  
>What's wrong with segfaulting? Better to segfault and know unambiguously that the function is broken than forget to check a return code and think the function is fine?  My .02. You're call.

Agreed - either behavior could be valid.

However, it seems the rest of the suite (other lock methods, other platforms)
all return APR_ENOTIMPL.  That suggests to me that we should be consistent.
So FirstBill is a mild -.1 against, and I'm a mild +.1 for this patch... other ideas
or comments?

Bill