On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 07:01:26AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 2:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> *snip* can't use two independent fcntl locks on Linux, Solaris, ?? > > Did we ever discuss what should be done about this?? > > Report on [EMAIL PROTECTED] reminds me to try to resurrect this. I don't > see the discussion here but I vaguely recalls someone mentioning it > would not be acceptable to change APR to choose a different default > mutex (proc_pthread?) when available. This would still allow a > program to explicitly choose fcntl mutexes and get itself in trouble > just like the native calls.
The default was changed to fcntl because of the potential for deadlocks in use of cross-process pthread mutexes: http://marc.info/?l=apr-dev&m=108720968023158&w=2 are those issues not seen any more? Since that decision was due to a potential OS bug (robust mutexes which aren't robust) has it been confirmed with Sun that this fcntl/EDEADLK is definitely not an OS bug? Regards, joe
