Hi, A review from someone who knows the jk code better than I do would be appreciated.
Does my alternative patch look appropriate? If not, is the OP's patch appropriate? If neither is appropriate, what might an appropriate patch look like and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Mark On 22/11/17 10:56, bugzi...@apache.org wrote: > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61733 > > --- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> --- > Created attachment 35544 > --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35544&action=edit > Possible alternative solution > > Having reviewed the source code it appears that after the lb_factor is changed > the shared memory is updated before the lb_mult is recalculated. I wonder if > swapping the order of those actions would be an alternative fix? I have > attached a possible patch. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
