On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
> This is where process gets in the way of just doing the right thing.
> Backport it for chrissakes.
amen.
This is where process gets in the way of just doing the right thing.
Backport it for chrissakes.
-g
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:39:58PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > Here is an adjusted patch, I've s/include/INCLUDES/ in your suggestion.
>
> Now committed. please +1 to bac
On Tue, 10 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- mod_mem_cache.c 4 Dec 2003 00:16:13 - 1.98
> +++ mod_mem_cache.c 10 Dec 2003 03:22:32 - 1.99
> @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@
>cache_object_t *obj = (cache_object_t *)a;
>mem_cache_object_t *mobj = obj->vobj;
>
Ian Holsman wrote:
hi.
I was wondering if the queue/hash routines in mod-mem-cache could be
reverted to using the pool based ones, instead of the malloc-based ones.
and possibly change some of the object creation to pool based as well.
this would leave the headers/content as malloc'd
2 reason
Stas Bekman wrote:
Here is an adjusted patch, I've s/include/INCLUDES/ in your suggestion.
Now committed. please +1 to backport in STATUS so we can move on...
Index: modules/filters/mod_include.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/mod
hi.
I was wondering if the queue/hash routines in mod-mem-cache could be
reverted to using the pool based ones, instead of the malloc-based ones.
and possibly change some of the object creation to pool based as well.
this would leave the headers/content as malloc'd
2 reasons I can see for this
Any chance you could take a peek at the patch I submitted for bug 19954
(HTTP tunneling through reverse proxy does not always work) as long as you
are looking at that source file?
BTW when I submitted the patch I bone-headedly swapped the params to diff so
the changes show as '-' instead of '+'
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 12/9/2003, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>>>André Malo wrote:
>>>
I'd like to keep possible. Simply because it's a very efficient
way to comment a whole part out (reliably, since one cannot specify an
empty -D argument). And it's in use out there.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:37 PM 12/9/2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Does this look good?
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, 0, r,
"mod_include: Options +Includes (or IncludesNoExec) "
- "wasn't set, passing data unmodified");
+
Hi Developers!
I'm not sure but I think there is a bug in the sdbm module.
The same code runs fine on intel hardware but not on my alpha.
I found this by running subversion which calls apr_dbm_* and like
functions. Every time subversion calls apr_dbm_exists(dbm, key) this
funtion returns false (
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Larry Toppi wrote:
> I found the culprit. The EOS bucket was being removed from the brigade but
> not destroyed. I'm going to submit the following patch to fix this bug.
>
> *** proxy_http_old.c Tue Dec 9 16:19:52 2003
> --- proxy_http.c Tue Dec 9 16:22:14 2003
> **
I found the culprit. The EOS bucket was being removed from
the brigade but not destroyed. I'm
going to submit the following patch to fix this bug.
*** proxy_http_old.c
Tue Dec 9 16:19:52
2003
--- proxy_http.c
Tue Dec 9 16:22:14
2003
***
*** 665,671
At 12:37 PM 12/9/2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
>Does this look good?
>
> ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, 0, r,
> "mod_include: Options +Includes (or IncludesNoExec) "
>- "wasn't set, passing data unmodified");
>+ "wasn't s
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Brian Akins wrote:
Backported from 2.1. Stable for me in various loads.
without the non-portable atomic code available and enabled in APR, this
is going to hurt performance, right? (more mutex operations performed
in mainline path for the unlucky who use the non-portable
Stas Bekman wrote:
Does this look good?
Index: modules/filters/mod_include.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/modules/filters/mod_include.c,v
retrieving revision 1.291
diff -u -r1.291 mod_include.c
--- modules/filters/mod_include.c
Brian Akins wrote:
Backported from 2.1. Stable for me in various loads.
without the non-portable atomic code available and enabled in APR, this is
going to hurt performance, right? (more mutex operations performed in mainline
path for the unlucky who use the non-portable atomics???) is it not
Stas Bekman wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
[...]
&include_module);
if (!(ap_allow_options(r) & OPT_INCLUDES)) {
+ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, 0, r,
+ "mod_include: Options +Includes (or
IncludesNoExec) "
+ "wasn't set, passi
Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
complain via error_log when mod_include's INCLUDES filter is
enabled, but the relevant Options flag allowing the filter to run
for the specific resource wasn't set, so that the filter won't
silently get skipped.
Index: mo
At 09:36 AM 12/9/2003, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>>
>> André Malo wrote:
>>>
>>>I'd like to keep possible. Simply because it's a very efficient
>>>way to comment a whole part out (reliably, since one cannot specify an
>>>empty -D argument). And it's in use out there.
>
>ok, here is a new patch that e
> Currently when Apache httpd accepts a new connection via APR, it compares
the
> fd with FD_SETSIZE and bombs if fd >= FD_SETSIZE.
>
> The limited value of this check is on platforms such as OS X < 10.3 with
no
> poll(), where APR has to use select(). Unfortunately, use 1K threads with
> worker M
Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> André Malo wrote:
>
>>* Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>anyway, attached is a patch that makes , ,
>>
>>
>>I'd like to keep possible. Simply because it's a very efficient
>>way to comment a whole part out (reliably, since one cannot specify an
>>
Currently when Apache httpd accepts a new connection via APR, it compares the
fd with FD_SETSIZE and bombs if fd >= FD_SETSIZE.
The limited value of this check is on platforms such as OS X < 10.3 with no
poll(), where APR has to use select(). Unfortunately, use 1K threads with
worker MPM on So
Stas Bekman wrote:
- httpd 2.0 doesn't maintain start/stop times in the extended status mode
add it
- while vhost info was added, it doesn't contain the port info,
rendering the vhost record useless for the non named vhosts.
any objections to adding it?
none from me
Should it be in a separate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
complain via error_log when mod_include's INCLUDES filter is
enabled, but the relevant Options flag allowing the filter to run
for the specific resource wasn't set, so that the filter won't
silently get skipped.
Index: mod_include.c
===
24 matches
Mail list logo
