On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Amit Athavale wrote:
> Quoting Ryans solution > > ><Ryan> > > > > > >I've been working on this, and I don't see a solution. I have the parameter > >added to child_init, and the structures get allocated. But, that doesn't > >solve > >the problem, because many lock types just can't be used across an > >apr_proc_create. > > > >The only solution I can think of for this is to remove APR_DEFAULT_LOCK and > >replace it with two macros: > > > >APR_DEFAULT_LOCK_INHERIT > >and > >APR_DEFAULT_LOCK_EXEC > > > >feel free to tell me to change the names. The first > >(APR_DEFAULT_LOCK_INHERIT) > >is what you use if you want to use apr_fork. This isn't portable, but it > >allows > >you to create locks that can be inherited. The second > >(APR_DEFAULT_LOCK_EXEC) > >is the portable option. This is what you use when you want to call > >apr_proc_create. > > > >Opinions? Any volunteers to write this code? I'll do it if nobody else > >steps > >up, but I am hoping to have less time soon, and I would really like to make > >more > >progress on the test suite. > > > ></Ryan> > > > I have couple of basic questions. > > 1> I am not entirely clear on what would be the behavior of > APR_DEFAULT_LOCK_EXEC > and apr_proc_create w.r.t current problem. Do you mean to say locks > created with > APR_DEFAULT_LOCK_EXEC can not be inherited at all ? Not that they can't be inherited, but that they can be opened from a process with a new address space. Just about any lock type can be inherited, but not any can be opened from a new process. > > 2> How do we check lock type in _child_init() when process is spawned by > apr_proc_create ? You don't check it. You basically have to assume that the user knew what they were doing. > > > I can contribute to this if idea is acceptable to all and most > importantly idea > is entirely clear to me ;) I'm off-line for a while, new baby born this morning, but I'll answer questions if I have time. Ryan
