Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 08:19:19PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > > I'd like to see this as a lock creation option. Something like
> > > a flag - say, APR_LOCK_VERIFY or some such. I don't think we should
> > > do the acquire/release unless asked for by the caller. I think
> > > this might mean changing or extending the lock creation APIs -
> > > thoughts? -- justin
> >
> > Why would it need to be an option? Are you concerned about the
> > performance?
>
> Not really the performance, but rather the fact of doing a lock
> acquisition and release during creation time strikes me the
> wrong way. I'd prefer that the caller indicate that it is okay
> to do that if we must (and the accept mutex in httpd can flag
> this). But, I'm not going to be a stickler about this because
> to do it my way would mean modifying the API. -- justin
Other than performance, why should the caller care? The lock can't
block. Unbeknownst to the caller we or libc get locks on other
callers.
Still curious,
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
