On Oct 11, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/11/2007 04:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Thu Oct 11 07:12:02 2007
New Revision: 583829
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=583829&view=rev
Log:
Add fix for, as of now, unconfirmed issue...
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/
STATUS?rev=583829&r1=583828&r2=583829&view=diff
=====================================================================
=========
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Thu Oct 11 07:12:02 2007
@@ -207,6 +207,12 @@
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=582631
+1: niq
+ * modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
(ap_proxy_http_register_hook): Fix
+ apr_pool_cleanup_register() invocation added in r583202,
which was
+ causing every apr_proc_create() call to segfault.
+ Trunk version of patch:
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=583813
+
I assume you are +1 on your proposal, right :-)?
The weird thing is that I didn't see the problem during
earlier testing (otherwise the +1 for r583202 wouldn't
have happened), so I'm doing deeper testing on recreating
the issue, but in anticipation, I added the proposal :)
