On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote: > Am 15.03.2018 um 16:48 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> >> wrote: >> Index: modules/slotmem/mod_slotmem_shm.c >> =================================================================== >> --- modules/slotmem/mod_slotmem_shm.c (revision 1826753) >> +++ modules/slotmem/mod_slotmem_shm.c (working copy) >> @@ -447,9 +466,9 @@ static apr_status_t slotmem_create(ap_slotmem_inst >> } >> ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, rv == APR_SUCCESS ? APLOG_DEBUG : >> APLOG_ERR, >> rv, ap_server_conf, APLOGNO(02611) >> - "create: apr_shm_create(%s) %s", >> - fname ? fname : "", >> - rv == APR_SUCCESS ? "succeeded" : "failed"); >> + "create: apr_shm_%s(%s) %s", >> + fbased && is_child_process() ? "attach" : "create", >> + fname, rv == APR_SUCCESS ? "succeeded" : "failed"); >> if (rv != APR_SUCCESS) { >> return rv; >> } > > > Removing the fname null check was intentional?
Can't happen, either fbased (this fname != NULL), or fname is set to "none" above. Thanks, Yann.