[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Weirdness while testing 1.4.0-rc2 (svnserve processes that don't die)

From: Garrett Rooney <rooneg_at_electricjellyfish.net>
Date: 2006-07-18 02:55:10 CEST

On 7/17/06, Branko ibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote:
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > On 7/17/06, Branko ibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh bother. I must have been smoking something really weird to not notice
> >> the this would obviously happen.
> >
> > Don't feel so bad, I should have seen it to...
> >
> >> Back to the salt mines it is, then ... I think that commit was quite the
> >> wrong solution, I'll have to come up with something better. Sheeh, but
> >> pools really are a total lossage in the presence of global caches.
> >
> > Here's a fix that appears to work. It makes it so that we NULL out
> > the lock when we clear its pool, and then only try and lock it if it's
> > non-NULL. This fixes the weird issues Mike was seeing, and should fix
> > the valgrind problems, although I haven't actually confirmed that.
> Assuming apr_terminate runs in a single-threaded context (which it
> should), this certainly seems to plug a hole. I can't be sure right now
> if it's the _only_ hole, but +1 to commit this in any case.

I believe we already assume that in other parts of this code... Or at
least some version of it did, I recall seeing a comment justifying
something based on the fact that either we had already locked the
appropriate mutex or we were in single threaded mode during atexit

Anyway, will commit and propose for backport.

Received on Tue Jul 18 02:56:33 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.