Re: Signal handling cleanup proposal

At 05:21 PM 7/7/2005 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

Andi Gutmans wrote: I'd like to take a step back and try and understand better in which cases we are failing. Although I know we added critical section code in the hash, I think it's effectiveness is questionable, because I believe there are many places today where we might have critical sections besides the hash which we aren't protecting. (And I agree with you that protecting them with real system calls sucks). Can you describe what problems you are encountering? Well, my main one is in my own extension where I was relying on HANDLE_BLOCK_INTERRUPTIONS and it surprised me that this was a null macro under Apache2. There are a number of sections in the engine using that macro as well. If they aren't needed, we should remove them, but if they are needed, surely they are also needed under Apache2 or other sapis so it would be good to have a sapi-independent mechanism for deferring signals. The Apache2 flakyness I have seen has been weird dangling stuff on shutdown that I always just ignored.

I have a feeling we might as well nuke it and if we bump into a problem try and find a more brute force solution, as resolving it at this granularity will probably not work. I'll look into it and will get back to you. Andi