On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:59 PM Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
>
> On 29 Jun 2020, at 13:08, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> /**
> >> * @defgroup module_magic Module Magic mime types
> >> @@ -1097,6 +1138,11 @@ struct request_rec {
> >> * TODO: compact elsewhere
> >> */
> >> unsigned int flushed:1;
> >> + /** Request flags associated with this request. Use
> >> + * AP_REQUEST_GET_FLAGS() and AP_REQUEST_SET_FLAGS() to access
> >> + * the elements of this field.
> >> + */
> >> + ap_request_bnotes_t bnotes;
> >> };
> >
> > Can't we use a single bitfield (like "flushed" above) for the single
> > AP_REQUEST_STRONG_ETAG flag?
>
> Yes we can and should (but in separate commits).
>
> I have my eye on the r->proxyreq flag, we can pack this into the binary notes
> too, values don’t need to be one bit wide.
Actually I was thinking the other way around, have the new "unsigned
int strong_etag:1" bitfield rather than changing the existing ones...
Why adding complexity with bit(s) macros while bitfields exist?
Regards;
Yann.
