[peruser] Multiple simultaneous connections issues

Sean Gabriel Heacock gabriel at telana.com
Wed Apr 5 03:07:45 MDT 2006


On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 09:48 +0100, Stefan Seufert wrote:
> But we still should think about some mutexes protecting the
> manipulations of the processor status. The chance that a race conditions
> will happen seems to be small and the consequences seem to be benign but
> still operations such as
> 
>                 if (processor->status == CHILD_STATUS_STANDBY)
>                 {
>                     _DBG("Activating child #%d", processor->id);
>                     processor->status = CHILD_STATUS_STARTING;
>                 }
> 
> should be protected. I think the APR has some useful stuff in that area.

A lot of that stuff can probably be removed - there's a lot of cleanup I
haven't gotten around to yet.  I wrote a lot of hacky code when I was
first getting this to work; I was under the (mistaken) impression that
each worker process needed its own socket, and they were created late
on, during processor startup.  Now that each ServerEnvironment has a
socket that's created early on, there shouldn't be as much need for all
this keeping-tabs-on-everything code.  Hopefully...

-- 
Sean Gabriel Heacock
Telana Internet Services
http://www.telana.com/




More information about the Peruser mailing list