Hi Yann! 2018-06-04 15:59 GMT+02:00 Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>:
> Hi Luca, > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > To keep archives happy: opened > > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62362 and added a patch > in > > there, if anybody wants to review it and give me suggestions I'd be > happy :) > > The semantic of tmpbb is not very clear in your patch, it's both the > brigade where buckets are saved (for the next call?) and the one that > gets passed to the next filter finally. > It doesn't look right to me, if tmpbb is to be forwarded in the same > pass there is no need to change its buckets' lifetime. > Couldn't we ap_save_brigade(f, &ctx->holdingbb, &ctx->tmpbb, ..) at > the end of the filter only? > Thanks for the review, bare in mind that this is my first "big" patch so I'd probably need a better grasp of the internals first :) I haven't touched holdingbb since I saw that was used elsewhere (in RATE_FULLSPEED), but I can try to check it as well. The idea of my patch (that I aimed to) is to pass the ctx->tmbbb only if it reaches chunk_size (or EOS is seen) and buffer otherwise the buckets in it using ap_save_brigade (waiting for the next call to see if chunk_size is reached). So if I got your point correctly you would use ctx->holdingbb to store the buckets (and changing their lifetime possibly) between calls, and tmpbb only within the same filter invocation? Luca
