[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Fix for back-shell child process deadlocks (ITS#2262)
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> There is one major caveat... such "fixes" are inherently non-portable.
Could you please expand on this? The fix makes simple use of the standard
ldap_pvt_thread_mutex type, in (AFAIK) the same way it's used in other
backends, so it seems to me it's no less portable than the entire thread
support: if platform X can't handle this patch, it probably can't handle
threads at all in which case the whole issue is irrelevant.
Or am I missing something?
> So, given that the intent of back-shell is for demonstration and
> prototyping, it's likely we will not incorporate your suggestion.
I was about to respond that back-shell has filled a very important niche
for us in production services, but I guess you're saying we should be
using a new, smarter backend like back-perl or back-meta? That makes
sense, but I suspect I'm far from the only one using back-shell beyond
what it was intended for - I can understand how you'd rather be putting
your resources into the new backends, but I still feel this fix is good
for people not ready to transition to 2.1.
Still, it's your call.
> It's documented in slap-shell(5) in the current "stable" release (2.1.12).
> Also, configure now warns if both --enable-shell and --with-threads are
Good to hear - thanks.
Simon Brady mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
ITS Technical Services
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand