2018-06-04 16:22 GMT+02:00 Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com>: > 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? > > After re-reading the code and I think I got your point Yann, I'll try to re-work my idea and create a new patch. Thanks!
Luca
