If the timeout has expired, shouldn't we return APR_TIMEUP?
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Your log is:
>>
>> Follow up to r1667900: semtimedop() should be passed a relative timeout
>> rather
>> then absolute.
>>
>> which implies that this fix is to adjust the calling convention for
>> semtimedop()... but your code refers to proc_mutex_sysv_tryacquire()...
>>
>> Hope that makes it clearer.
>
> APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_proc_mutex_timedlock(apr_proc_mutex_t *mutex,
> apr_time_t timeout,
> int absolute);
>
> So the API allows the caller to specify whether the passed in timeout
> value is absolute or relative (to now).
> So depending on the underlying/native timedlock function, we have to
> switch from the one to the other before the syscall.
>
> semtimedop() expects a relative timeout, so if the caller gives an
> absolute one we make it relative (by substracting now), and if the
> result is negative (i.e. the given absolute time is the the past), we
> act return of a non-blocking trylock
>
> Why isn't it correct, should we error out or block indefinitely?
