From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 10:01 AM
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 01:52:54PM +0200, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > > also, what happens if the child sms is *already part of the parent*? > > > > can you guarantee that the registration and destruction of the > > sms, via cleanup, will not stuff the parent by effectively > > destroying the child sms twice? > > Yup. That's the catch. It'd probably need to be a bit more > sophisticated than what I've posted OR make the apr_sms_reset a bit more > robust (i.e. handle SMSes that have already been cleaned up). I'm > leaning towards making the apr_sms_reset more robust. -- justin If we simply go to the 'scope' pool to execute cleanups, and the 'allocation' pool for nothing but allocation, then this whole problem _should_ go away. And enforcing that the 'allocation' pool is either top-level itself, or a descendant of the 'scope' pool, assures that the cleanups will unwind properly for both (since this thread-child pool is torn down, everything below in the 'scope' heirarchy will be cleaned up, as well). The entire cleanups_for_exec run correctly too, since all children's 'scope' pools must descend from the single parent pool. Bill
