Stas Bekman wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > >>--On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 1:43 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Any reason why we don't enable reporting of Req? I have > >>>a 2.1 patch ready to go, but I don't know why we don't > >>>do this.... > >> > >>I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. =) > >> > >>Can you please provide some more details? -- justin > > > Already committed (love CTR). Basically, the 'Req' value displayed by > > mod_status is always 0 since we never update the required worker fields > > that note start and stop processing time. > > Whoah! wait long enough and the work will be done by someone else :) I was > just about to get this done :) > > Jim, what would it take to backport it to 2.0? I see that 149550 changes > ap_time_process_request API, but it's an internal API, no? >
Piece o' cake. I'll add it to 2.0's STATUS. Yeah, the ap_time_process_request API changed (for the better, IMO, since the worker "info" should be opaque(sp?)), but it's just internal. At least, we don't declare it as public :) -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."
