On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:13 PM, <yla...@apache.org> wrote: > Author: ylavic > Date: Fri Mar 24 15:13:16 2017 > New Revision: 1788467 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1788467&view=rev > Log: > Merge r1788335 from trunk: > > apr_buckets: Add apr_bucket_file_set_buf_size() which allows to configure > the size of the buffer used to read files. > > Modified: > apr/apr-util/branches/1.6.x/ (props changed) > apr/apr-util/branches/1.6.x/CHANGES > apr/apr-util/branches/1.6.x/buckets/apr_buckets_alloc.c [] > ============================================================================== > --- apr/apr-util/branches/1.6.x/buckets/apr_buckets_alloc.c (original) > +++ apr/apr-util/branches/1.6.x/buckets/apr_buckets_alloc.c Fri Mar 24 > 15:13:16 2017 > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > > #include "apr_buckets.h" > #include "apr_allocator.h" > +#include "apr_version.h" > > #define ALLOC_AMT (8192 - APR_MEMNODE_T_SIZE) > > @@ -121,6 +122,35 @@ APU_DECLARE_NONSTD(void) apr_bucket_allo > #endif > } > > +APU_DECLARE_NONSTD(apr_size_t) apr_bucket_alloc_aligned_floor(apr_size_t > size) > +{ > + if (size <= SMALL_NODE_SIZE) { > + size = SMALL_NODE_SIZE; > + } > + else { > +#if APR_VERSION_AT_LEAST(1,6,0) > + if (size < APR_MEMNODE_T_SIZE) { > + size = apr_allocator_align(0); > + } > + else { > + size = apr_allocator_align(size - APR_MEMNODE_T_SIZE); > + } > +#else > + /* Assumes the minimum (default) allocator's boundary of 4K and > + * minimum (immutable before APR-1.6.x) allocation size of 8K, > + * hence possibly (yet unlikely) under-estimating the floor... > + */ > + size = APR_ALIGN(size, 4096); > + if (size < 8192) { > + size = 8192; > + } > +#endif > + size -= APR_MEMNODE_T_SIZE; > + } > + size -= SIZEOF_NODE_HEADER_T; > + return size; > +}
I don't see any other decisional on APR_VERSION in apr-util code, does it mean that an apr-util major.minor is bound to the same apr's major.minor (e.g. apr-util-1.6.x is necessarily distributed/to-be-linked with apr-1.6.x)? If this is the case the above code could assume that apr_allocator_align() exists and avoid the current (unwise?) assumption otherwise... Thanks for some enlightenments. Regards, Yann.
