Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52611 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36890 invoked from network); 31 May 2011 23:01:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 May 2011 23:01:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 74.125.83.170 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.83.170 mail-pv0-f170.google.com Received: from [74.125.83.170] ([74.125.83.170:63355] helo=mail-pv0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 49/95-25701-24375ED4 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 19:01:23 -0400 Received: by pvh21 with SMTP id 21so2415294pvh.29 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.188.21 with SMTP id l21mr1071213wff.258.1306882880103; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.200.149] (c-76-126-236-132.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.126.236.132]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2sm276593wfe.3.2011.05.31.16.01.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 May 2011 16:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DE5733E.7080409@lerdorf.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:01:18 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stas Malyshev CC: Ilia Alshanetsky , PHP Developers Mailing List References: <4DE56D30.3050402@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: <4DE56D30.3050402@sugarcrm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Zend Signal Handling From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus) On 05/31/2011 03:35 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> The patch is solid (have been using it in production for quite some >> time) and improvement is quite helpful, especially when APC is being >> used. Are there any reasons not to apply this to 5.4? > > I don't know of any. Are there any issues with this change (BC, etc.)? There could be some weird interactivity issues with certain environments, but the patch takes care of most issues and I think the added stability this gives opcode caches is worth the minor risk. -Rasmus