> On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 07:30:51PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > + qi = apr_palloc(pool, sizeof(*qi));
> > > + memset(qi, 0, sizeof(*qi));
> >
> > As we said, if you are concerned about the performance aspect
> > of apr_pcalloc, then we should fix apr_pcalloc NOT attempt to
> > work around its inefficiencies by pointedly not using it.
> >
> > If/when Cliff (or someone else?) commits the change to apr_pcalloc,
> > this chunk would be magically changed along with everything else if
> > you simply called apr_pcalloc in the first place.
>
> We don't have a consensus on this, and I'm ambivalent about making the
> p_calloc macro. If we do come up with a consensus than it can change.
> Until then this is more correct than using p_calloc.
I have no problem with using apr_palloc()/memset() in place of apr_pcalloc().
>
> > > + rv = apr_thread_mutex_unlock(queue_info->idlers_mutex);
> > > + if (rv != APR_SUCCESS) {
> > > + return rv;
> > > + }
> > > + return APR_SUCCESS;
> > > +}
> >
> > As I said before, simply "return rv;" works here.
>
> Yeah, but this is much more readable.
I disagree. I would rather see "return rv".
My .02.
Bill
