On 04/06/2018 09:53 AM, yla...@apache.org wrote: > Author: ylavic > Date: Fri Apr 6 07:53:02 2018 > New Revision: 1828492 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1828492&view=rev > Log: > reslist: follow up to r1828289: enfore empty list requirement when setting > fifo. > > The doxygen remark wasn't enough as noted by Ruediger. > > > Modified: > apr/apr/trunk/include/apr_reslist.h > apr/apr/trunk/util-misc/apr_reslist.c >
> > Modified: apr/apr/trunk/util-misc/apr_reslist.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/trunk/util-misc/apr_reslist.c?rev=1828492&r1=1828491&r2=1828492&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- apr/apr/trunk/util-misc/apr_reslist.c (original) > +++ apr/apr/trunk/util-misc/apr_reslist.c Fri Apr 6 07:53:02 2018 > @@ -445,9 +445,15 @@ APR_DECLARE(void) apr_reslist_timeout_se > reslist->timeout = timeout; > } > > -APR_DECLARE(void) apr_reslist_fifo_set(apr_reslist_t *reslist, int fifo) > +APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_reslist_fifo_set(apr_reslist_t *reslist, > + int fifo) > { > + if (!APR_RING_EMPTY(&reslist->avail_list, apr_res_t, link)) { Don't we need to lock if want to do this or is this sufficiently atomic? Further on don't we need to make the check and the setting of reslist->fifo atomic, hence both done while we hold the lock? > + return APR_EBUSY; > + } > + > reslist->fifo = fifo; > + return APR_SUCCESS; > } > Regards Rüdiger
