On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 07:52:46PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Can't we pass in a data structure to the thread function which has
> all the required information? The data the user wants to pass in will
> need to be in the data structure aswell ofcourse.
-0.9. I don't like the idea of marshaling the data to the thread's
worker function.
I'm seeing the proposed marshaling like so:
struct {
void *data;
apr_pool_t *pool;
} apr_thread_starter_t;
void * worker_function(void *v)
{
apr_thread_starter *ts = v;
whatever_the_thread_really_wants_t *d = ts->data;
...
}
apr_thread_create(blah, blah, blah)
{
apr_thread_starter *ts = apr_palloc(...);
ts->data = the-data-that-user-really-wants-to-pass-in;
ts->sms = apr_pool_create(blah, blah, blah);
thread_create(go call worker_function with ts as the sole argument)
}
Yuck.
Since I'm seeing the thread SMS be completely separate from the parent
SMS, I'm just not sure why we even want to pass the sms along.
Unless you can make a case that the thread's SMS needs to know about the
parent SMS. If so, then we've got major problems in our SMS design.
In order to provide a win against the current pool code in a threaded
MPM, we *need* to have thread-specific SMS that have no locks or
association to anything other than a simple unlocked (from APR's
perspective) malloc/free (aka std) SMS. -- justin
