> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Im > Auftrag von Vinicius Petrucci > Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. September 2007 21:59 > An: Ruediger Pluem > Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org > Betreff: Re: mod_proxy_balancer > > > Hi, > > As I said before, your last patch didn't solve the bug because the > variable you created (worker_is_initialized) always gets zero value. > > I've created the patches attached. The solution was to simply move the > code section that set lbfactor, lbstatus, and lbset to the original > configuration inside the function ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share() > in proxy_util.c.
This is really, really strange because basicly the conditions in your patch and my patch are the same (The test done at the beginning of ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share is basicly the same as mine). So I currently cannot tell why your patch works and mine does not. This needs further testing. > > It works using my httpd-trunk version. Could you guys confirm > if it is correct? The downside of your patch is that ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share is also called from other places outside mod_proxy_balancer and it is part of the public proxy API which might make it impossible to backport your patch to the stable branch as your patch changes the behaviour of the function. Regards Rüdiger > > Vinicius > > On 04/09/07, Vinicius Petrucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know why, but each time a new child is created the variable > > worker_is_initialized is 0. > > > > Therefore, the problem of reseting to the original > configuration is not solved. > > > > I'm debugging more on this... > > > > On 04/09/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 09/03/2007 11:40 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote: > > > > Ruedinger: > > > > > > > > In your patch, I think the call > PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED(workers) > > > > before initialize the pointer *workers is causing that > error log: > > > > > > > > [Mon Sep 03 18:32:34 2007] [notice] child pid 5225 exit signal > > > > Segmentation fault (11) > > > > > > Sorry my fault. Can you please try the attached one please? > > > > > > > > > > > But if I call the method: ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share(conf, > > > > workers, s); before, I always get worker initialized... > > > > > > Which is why I called it before :-). > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Rüdiger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Vinicius Tavares Petrucci > > home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci > > > > > -- > Vinicius Tavares Petrucci > home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci >
