This does not seem correct at all... Why are we calling proc_mutex_sysv_tryacquire(mutex)??
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 12:24 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote: > > Author: ylavic > Date: Wed Apr 5 16:24:00 2017 > New Revision: 1790296 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1790296&view=rev > Log: > Follow up to r1667900: semtimedop() should be passed a relative timeout rather > then absolute. > > > Modified: > apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c > > Modified: apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c?rev=1790296&r1=1790295&r2=1790296&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c (original) > +++ apr/apr/trunk/locks/unix/proc_mutex.c Wed Apr 5 16:24:00 2017 > @@ -343,8 +343,11 @@ static apr_status_t proc_mutex_sysv_time > else { > int rc; > struct timespec abstime; > - if (!absolute) { > - timeout += apr_time_now(); > + if (absolute) { > + timeout -= apr_time_now(); > + if (timeout < 0) { > + return proc_mutex_sysv_tryacquire(mutex); > + } > } > abstime.tv_sec = apr_time_sec(timeout); > abstime.tv_nsec = apr_time_usec(timeout) * 1000; /* nanoseconds */ > >
