hi,
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> With http/2 becoming closer and closer, and spdy being
> in place as we speak, it seems that we should really
> ramp up development on trunk to support these new techs.
>
> Lets get serious on what needs to be done w/ trunk
> to get there
Hi Bill,
Thanks very much for your email and I am really happy that I got lots of very
good feedbacks on the email list.
The patch was created only for Linux Prefork mpm so that it should not impact
winnt_mpm. I may misunderstand you here, but do you mean in order to adopt the
patch, we need t
On Thursday 06 of March 2014, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> If you want to truly re-architect the MPM, by all means, propose it as
> another MPM module. If it isn't adopted here, please don't hesitate
> to offer it to interested users as separate source (although I hope we
> find a way to adopt it
Yingqi,
as one of the 'Windows folks' here, your idea is very intriguing, and
I'm sorry that other issues have distracted me from giving it the
attention it deserves.
If you want to truly re-architect the MPM, by all means, propose it as
another MPM module. If it isn't adopted here, please don't
Hi Yann,
Thanks very much for your email.
1. If I understand correctly (please correct me if not), do you suggest
duplicating the listen socks inside the child process with SO_REUSEPROT
enabled? Yes, I agree this would be a cleaner implementation and I actually
tried that before. However, I en
Hello Jim,
I see a style difference in the change below compare to the lines just
above it.
How to test a value after an assignment.
In the while statement the value is tested implicitly.
In the if statement the value is explicitly compared against NULL.
Usually the second way is chosen to avoi
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Also, but this is not related to this patch particularly (addressed to
> who knows), it's unclear to me why an accept mutex is needed at all.
> Multiple processes poll()ing the same inherited socket is safe but not
> multiple ones? Is that an O
Hi Yingqi,
I'm a bit confused about the patch, mainly because it seems to handle the
same way both with and without SO_REUSEPORT available, while SO_REUSEPORT
could (IMHO) be handled in children only (a less intrusive way).
With SO_REUSEPORT, I would have expected the accept mutex to be useless
s
