On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group > <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > > Isn't > > > > x.is_req = (headers == r->headers_in); > > > > in ap_proxy_clear_connection an issue, when only called with the copy of > > r->headers_in? > > Hm, you are right. > > Here is a v2 which introduces ap_proxy_clear_connection_ex(), with > ap_proxy_clear_connection(..., headers) <=> > ap_proxy_clear_connection_ex(..., headers, headers == r->headers_in)
OK, great. That works for me with both test cases I have triggering a 400 now. Votes for 2.4.x on that please! +1 from me. Regards, Joe
