Re: Balancers (file based SHMs) and restart issue (Windows only?)

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > PR 58024 looks hard(er) to resolve (details there)... > > It seems that DeleteFile() always fails when some file mapping exists > on the file, which also prevents "deletion when the last handle to the > file is closed". >

Re: Balancers (file based SHMs) and restart issue (Windows only?)

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > So maybe we need a general ap_shm_create() wrapper usable wherever it may > help? > At least until a new APR_SHM_DELONCLOSE flag is added to apr_shm_create_ex()? Sorry I was not too clear. The disk-cache issue is not

Re: Balancers (file based SHMs) and restart issue (Windows only?)

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > Oh I see, I guess FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE is not suitable there > since files are opened/closed by different processes... > But if I read DeleteFile() doc correctly, for non-mapped files it > should work (delayed until

Re: Balancers (file based SHMs) and restart issue (Windows only?)

PR 58024 looks hard(er) to resolve (details there)... It seems that DeleteFile() always fails when some file mapping exists on the file, which also prevents "deletion when the last handle to the file is closed". So currently (mod_slotmem_shm on trunk), the SHM files by generation leak on the

Re: Balancers (file based SHMs) and restart issue (Windows only?)

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> So maybe we need a general ap_shm_create() wrapper usable wherever it may >> help? >> At least until a new APR_SHM_DELONCLOSE flag is added to

Re: Balancers (file based SHMs) and restart issue (Windows only?)

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> PR 58024 looks hard(er) to resolve (details there)... >> >> It seems that DeleteFile() always fails when some file mapping exists >> on the file,

warning free, c89 enforced

With r1702948, all sorts of warnings are enabled on compilation of httpd itself when using GCC, especially the C89 standard is being checked. All warning lead now to compiler errors. There have been only slight changes in code necessary. The static introduced via APLOG_USE_MODULE is being

Re: svn commit: r1702948 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: acinclude.m4 configure.in include/http_config.h include/scoreboard.h modules/ssl/ssl_engine_kernel.c server/util_expr_eval.c

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, wrote: > Author: icing > Date: Mon Sep 14 13:29:35 2015 > New Revision: 1702948 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1702948 > Log: > httpd compiles warning free on gcc and every new warning will be treated as > an error, standard c-89 is enforced >

Re: svn commit: r1702948 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: acinclude.m4 configure.in include/http_config.h include/scoreboard.h modules/ssl/ssl_engine_kernel.c server/util_expr_eval.c

> Am 14.09.2015 um 15:52 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, wrote: >> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/util_expr_eval.c (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/util_expr_eval.c Mon Sep 14 13:29:35 2015 >> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static

Re: Balancers (file based SHMs) and restart issue (Windows only?)

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> Oh I see, I guess FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE is not suitable there >> since files are opened/closed by different processes... >> But if I read

Re: warning free, c89 enforced

+1. thx! > On Sep 14, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > With r1702948, all sorts of warnings are enabled on compilation of httpd > itself when using GCC, especially the C89 standard is being checked. All > warning lead now to compiler errors. > >

Re: svn commit: r1702473 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/slotmem/mod_slotmem_shm.c

:) No worries, it's just that it creates an artificial delat between trunk and 2.4. > On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > Well, granted, it made sense to me to change the field name with the > comment... > I also thought about having both 'name' and

Re: svn commit: r1695727 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: docs/manual/mod/core.xml include/http_core.h server/core.c server/protocol.c

Hi, Protocols and ProtocolsHonorOrder have the same description. Is it done on purpose or is it a cut'n paste error? CJ Le 13/08/2015 17:33, ic...@apache.org a écrit : Author: icing Date: Thu Aug 13 15:33:07 2015 New Revision: 1695727 URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1695727 Log: new directive

Re: [PATCH 57300] mod_session save optimization

On 8/20/2015 4:58 PM, Paul Spangler wrote: Hello, The bug report contains a more detailed explanation of the patch, but there are some points I thought might lead to some discussion. First a quick summary of the issue: mod_session writes out the session every request even if there aren't any

Re: AuthDigestEnableQueryStringHack

On 12 Sep 2015, at 7:57 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > should we axe, in mod_auth_digest, on trunk, the code related to > 'AuthDigestEnableQueryStringHack'? > > This has been undocumented for about 3 years >