[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       apr-dev
Subject:    Re: Netware opinions requested; was Re: svn commit: r1797413
From:       Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev () gmail ! com>
Date:       2017-07-27 18:24:14
Message-ID: CAKQ1sVO5Wf9Bv+dF9=Q+Zgd=HDxJHxCsrW+dZ0mPLKTo4pdfhA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> We gave this two weeks... are any Netware users available to comment?
>
> Otherwise, Yann, if we concur based on simple inspection, rather than
> confirmation from the Netware developers, it seems this change should
> go into apr 1.6.3 and a prominent NOTICE: added to CHANGES to
> ensure Netware users that apr >= 1.6.3 should be combined with code
> compiled to consume apr >= 1.6.3, or visa versa. If my reading is correct,
> apr >= 1.6.3 with code compiled against an earlier apr will be suboptimal
> but begin (suddenly) working. and the other two combinations, the API
> simply results in a NOTIMPL result.
>
> WDYT?

+1, looks OK for me (ABI wise).

There wasn't even a dereference in 1.5.x's apr_os_proc_mutex_get(),
simply a noop.
Just like in 1.6.x so far.

It's only if someone relied on apr_os_proc_mutex_t to be a NXMutex_t
(which now would be a pointer to NXMutex_t) that it's an API issue,
but who would do that without getting or setting one via
apr_os_proc_mutex_get/put(), which never worked on Netware...
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]