My chief concern was that the phrase "Common Log" has a specific meaning to us.
ap_mpm_common_log_startup() or something else descriptive would be a better name, but our crew is famous for not being terrific namers of things :) Did this compile with no warnings? It seems statics were used without being explicitly initialized, and I don't have my copy of K&R to check that these are always NULL, but guessing that's so. For clarity alone, I'd prefer these were initialized like every other example they were adjacent to. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > We are very close... I believe wrowe has some somewhat trivial > reservations about it, but we are awaiting 1 more vote. > > Someone want to address wrowes concerns on trunk and patch > the patch (stuff like naming)? I may have time next week. > > > On May 14, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Yingqi, > > > > 2 votes already (on 3), it makes its way ;) > > > > Regards, > > Yann. > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Lu, Yingqi <yingqi...@intel.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I just want to check if anyone gets chances to check the SO_REUSEPORT > patch? Any feedback? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Yingqi > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lu, Yingqi [mailto:yingqi...@intel.com] > >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 8:58 AM > >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: SO_REUSEPORT > >> > >> Hi Christophe, Jim and Yann, > >> > >> Thank you very much for your consideration of putting SO_REUSEPORT > patch in the 2.4 stable release. > >> > >> I am also very happy that you find the white paper :-) All the most > recent testing results are included in the white paper. Also, we have > tested the (graceful) restart on the patch (previously, there was a bug.), > it should be fine now. Please test it to confirm. > >> > >> Please let me know if you need anything else. Your help is appreciated. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Yingqi > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic....@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 5:02 AM > >> To: httpd > >> Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT > >> > >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Christophe JAILLET < > christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>> Maybe, 2.4.14 could focus on reviewing/merging this patch and > >>> associated performance improvement? > >>> To help adoption, maybe an ASF server could be upgraded with a > >>> SO_REUSEPORT patched version of Apache to have our own measurements > >>> and see how it scales in a real world application. > >> > >> I did some testing with an injector at the time of the proposal (on a > 2.2.x version of the patch, so mainly with worker), and can confirm that it > really scales much better. > >> Where httpd without SO_REUSEPORT stops accepting/handling connections, > it continues to shine with the option/buckets enabled. > >> (I don't have the numbers for now, need to search deeper, btw the ones > from Intel are probably more of interest...) > >> > >> So regarding the upgrade on infra, the difference may not be obvious if > the tested machine is not "at the limits". > >> > >> One thing that probably is worth testing is (graceful) restarts, though. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Yann. > >
