On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/memory/unix/apr_pools.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.196
> retrieving revision 1.197
> diff -u -r1.196 -r1.197
> --- apr_pools.c 28 May 2003 04:39:42 -0000 1.196
> +++ apr_pools.c 18 Jul 2003 23:10:04 -0000 1.197
> @@ -856,7 +856,7 @@
> #if APR_HAS_THREADS
> apr_thread_mutex_t *mutex;
>
> - if ((mutex = apr_allocator_mutex_get(allocator)) != NULL)
> + if ((mutex = apr_allocator_mutex_get(parent->allocator)) != NULL)
> apr_thread_mutex_lock(mutex);
> #endif /* APR_HAS_THREADS */
Yes, definitely correct.
Though what about line 864, which says:
pool->sibling->ref = &pool->sibling;
Are the pool->sibling pointers uniformly protected by the pool->parent
mutex? I haven't investigated all of the implications yet, but it seems
like that might cause problems as well.
--Cliff
