> Am 14.03.2016 um 09:32 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: >> On 13 Mar 2016, at 10:55 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I also meant the original feature never made it, so we can whatever we >>> want to it. >> >> What do you think of this? > > Looks good and indeed very valuable to me, s/socket/pollfd/ is a great idea.
Like the direction this is going as well. Do we need a MPM Query for detecting support before one actually has a handle for registration? > Maybe a little nit-picking below... > >> >> Index: include/ap_mpm.h >> =================================================================== >> --- include/ap_mpm.h (revision 1734657) >> +++ include/ap_mpm.h (working copy) >> @@ -207,50 +207,48 @@ >> void *baton); >> >> /** >> - * Register a callback on the readability or writability on a group of >> sockets >> - * @param s Null-terminated list of sockets >> + * Register a callback on the readability or writability on a group of >> + * sockets/pipes. >> + * @param pds Null-terminated list of apr_pollfd_t >> * @param p pool for use between registration and callback >> - * @param for_read Whether the sockets are monitored for read or writability >> * @param cbfn The callback function >> * @param baton userdata for the callback function >> - * @return APR_SUCCESS if all sockets could be added to a pollset, >> + * @return APR_SUCCESS if all sockets/pipes could be added to a pollset, >> * APR_ENOTIMPL if no asynch support, or an apr_pollset_add error. >> - * @remark When activity is found on any 1 socket in the list, all are >> removed >> + * @remark When activity is found on any 1 socket/pipe in the list, all are >> removed >> * from the pollset and only 1 callback is issued. >> */ >> >> -AP_DECLARE(apr_status_t) ap_mpm_register_socket_callback(apr_socket_t **s, >> - apr_pool_t *p, >> - int for_read, >> - >> ap_mpm_callback_fn_t *cbfn, >> - void *baton); >> +AP_DECLARE(apr_status_t) ap_mpm_register_poll_callback(apr_pollfd_t **pds, >> + apr_pool_t *p, >> + ap_mpm_callback_fn_t >> *cbfn, >> + void *baton); > > Since apr_pollfd_t is not opaque (unlike apr_socket_t), maybe we could > remove the indirection here (and in the code below) with somthing like > (apr_pollfd_t *pfds, size_t npfds, ...). > That would allow a single allocation (all pfds in once) and possibly > make things easier for the caller. > > Regards, > Yann.
