No, I didn't change anything that would allow for anonymous shared memory. This should probably check for a NULL before calling apr_file_remove().
Brad Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:30:42 AM >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > +#if APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY > + /* If the cache file already exists then delete it. Otherwise we are > + * going to run into problems creating the shared memory. */ > + apr_file_remove(st->cache_file, ptemp); > + if (st->cache_file) { > + char *lck_file = apr_pstrcat (st->pool, st->cache_file, ".lck", NULL); > + apr_file_remove(lck_file, ptemp); > + } > +#endif Does this patch support the idea of the cache file being NULL (ie anonymous shared memory?). The previous code insisted on specifying a cache file, which didn't work properly under Linux. Now, not specifying a cache filename means "use anonymous shared memory", I'd just like to check that this NULL filename is case is still handled properly. Regards, Graham --
