Re: Comments on accept-mutex/single-listen patch ??

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Marc Slemko wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > > Marc Slemko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So I don't see how "NONE" is viable on _ANY_ platform in the multiple
> > > > listener case.  It may seem to "mostly" work, but it is not reliable and
> > > > can not be permitted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > threaded
> >
> > ???
> >
> > First off, simply being threaded doesn't avoid the issue... it depends on
> > the particular model being used (ie. the MPM in 2.x...).
>
> ...and if you are threaded using a MPM that doesn't need it (eg. a

Hey - we do not have MPM's for 1.3 - that 2.0. This is just hacking to get
some sort of configurability in 1.3 - which allows you to run one binary
on a slightly wider range of binary compatible platforms by enabling you
to choose a method at run time.

> The only thing that is a function of what OS it is on is which methods
> are available when serialization is necessary, and if serialization
> is necessary in the multiple-processes/threads blocked in accept()
> on the same socket situation or not.  (although any OS with a usable
> threading model probably supports multiple threads blocked in
> accept() on the same socket anyway).

Dw