Sounds great, good observations. Absent any other opinions, with that resolved, I'm happy to tag and roll this afternoon to begin the release vote.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 04:26 Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 5:01 AM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > > Opinions? > > Anyway, our usage of readdir_r() is no more thread-safe than with the > non-_r() version, because of the (struct dirent *)thedir->entry we > pass to it (should be either on the stack or allocated for each > apr_dir_read() call), or more generally because of our design of > apr_dir_read() which does _not_ allow to call it concurrently with the > same apr_dir_t (thus pool), like almost all of our designs. > > So readdir() vs readdir_r () is a non-issue to begin with IMHO (we use > readdir_r() probably like readdir() is implemented), let's just > silence the warning like in r1856274... >
