> From: Jeff Trawick
>
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >
> > Is it really correct to return APR_EAGAIN regardless of the return
> > value of apr_thread_cond_timedwait()? Or is that a bug caused by a
> > lack of {}'s? This is why we tend to say that you should
> always use
> > {}'s, even if the conditional block is only one line long.
>
That was the bug.
> if not returning whatever apr_thread_cond_timedwait()
> returned, why not return APR_TIMEUP instead of APR_EAGAIN?
> but like Cliff said I wonder why the retval of
> apr_thread_cond_timewait() isn't appropriate?
>
The fixed patch uses the returning value from apr_thread_cond_timedwait().
Also changed to apr_reslist_timeout_set.
MT.
Index: apr_reslist.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/apr-util/include/apr_reslist.h,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 apr_reslist.h
--- apr_reslist.h 1 Jan 2003 00:02:20 -0000 1.5
+++ apr_reslist.h 9 Dec 2003 15:31:26 -0000
@@ -150,6 +150,15 @@
APU_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_reslist_release(apr_reslist_t *reslist,
void *resource);
+/**
+ * Set the timeout the acquire will wait for a free resource
+ * when the maximum number of resources is exceeded.
+ * @param reslist The resource list.
+ * @param timeout Timeout to wait. The zero waits forewer.
+ */
+APU_DECLARE(void) apr_reslist_timeout_set(apr_reslist_t *reslist,
+ apr_interval_time_t timeout);
+
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
Index: apr_reslist.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/apr-util/misc/apr_reslist.c,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -r1.6 apr_reslist.c
--- apr_reslist.c 6 Oct 2003 20:34:30 -0000 1.6
+++ apr_reslist.c 9 Dec 2003 15:33:31 -0000
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@
int smax; /* soft maximum on the total number of resources */
int hmax; /* hard maximum on the total number of resources */
apr_interval_time_t ttl; /* TTL when we have too many resources */
+ apr_interval_time_t timeout; /* Timeout for waiting on resource */
apr_reslist_constructor constructor;
apr_reslist_destructor destructor;
void *params; /* opaque data passed to constructor and destructor calls */
@@ -343,7 +344,15 @@
* a new one, or something becomes free. */
else while (reslist->ntotal >= reslist->hmax
&& reslist->nidle <= 0) {
- apr_thread_cond_wait(reslist->avail, reslist->listlock);
+ if (reslist->timeout) {
+ if ((rv = apr_thread_cond_timedwait(reslist->avail,
+ reslist->listlock, reslist->timeout)) != APR_SUCCESS) {
+ apr_thread_mutex_unlock(reslist->listlock);
+ return rv;
+ }
+ }
+ else
+ apr_thread_cond_wait(reslist->avail, reslist->listlock);
}
/* If we popped out of the loop, first try to see if there
* are new resources available for immediate use. */
@@ -382,6 +391,12 @@
apr_thread_mutex_unlock(reslist->listlock);
return reslist_maint(reslist);
+}
+
+APU_DECLARE(void) apr_reslist_timeout_set(apr_reslist_t *reslist,
+ apr_interval_time_t timeout)
+{
+ reslist->timeout = timeout;
}
#endif /* APR_HAS_THREADS */
