On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:42 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: >> On Sep 19, 2017 05:17, <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c?rev=1808855&r1=1808854&r2=1808855&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Tue Sep 19 10:17:40 >> 2017 >> @@ -103,7 +103,8 @@ static const char *set_worker_param(apr_ >> /* Normalized load factor. Used with BalancerMember, >> * it is a number between 1 and 100. >> */ >> - ival = atoi(val); >> + double fval = atof(val); >> + ival = fval * 100.0; >> if (ival < 1 || ival > 100) >> return "LoadFactor must be a number between 1..100"; >> worker->s->lbfactor = ival; >> >> >> As this patch was obviously never tested by a single reviewer, my >> inclination is to revert this non-feature regression, in order to tag a >> 2.4.29 tomorrow a.m., Windows and OS/X 10.13 ready with the many small fixes >> already committed. Then, let this feature be reintroduced when working, with >> some testing, along with many other enhancements proposed right now but all >> potentially disruptive, as a 2.4.30 to follow soon after a .29 stability >> release. >> >> Thoughts? > > Or apply the same thing as r1805206 for the balancer_manager case > (which I tested...). > Looks like a serious regression which shouldn't skip a release IMHO, > can't 2.4.29 wait a bit (if ever, such small fix could be voted quite > quickly)?
Hmm, actually this backport was missing r1805195, I noticed for r1805190 but not this one...
