On 10/04/2009 06:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03.10.2009 14:54, [email protected] wrote:
>>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/scoreboard.c (original)
>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/scoreboard.c Sat Oct 3 12:54:35 2009
>>> @@ -490,6 +492,19 @@
>>> status, r);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +AP_DECLARE(int) ap_update_child_status_from_conn(ap_sb_handle_t
>>> *sbh, int status,
>>> + conn_rec *c)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!sbh)
>>> + return -1;
>>> +
>>> + request_rec fake_rec;
>>> + fake_rec.connection = c;
>>
>> Shouldn't we set fake_rec.per_dir_config and fake_rec.server to NULL
>> to play safe?
>>
>
> No because if you follow the code, a null fake_rec.per_dir_config is
> handled correctly
> as is a null server. The only one that wasn't was the one that required
> the change to the double-possible NULL.
That wasn't my point. I was worried that fake_rec.per_dir_config and
fake_rec.server
do not get initialized at all and might contain some random value.
If they were NULL I was confident that everything goes well, not so with
a random value.
Regards
Rüdiger
