On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:23 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Yann Ylavic
> wrote:
> >>
> >> ISTM that the request line has already been
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:23 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> ISTM that the request line has already been clobbered (blanked) by the
>> previous call to
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>
>> Can I entice anyone else into looking at this PR? I think I am
>> missing the boat entirely.
>
>
> What's the deal? Pear-flavored drink in
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> Can I entice anyone else into looking at this PR? I think I am
> missing the boat entirely.
>
What's the deal? Pear-flavored drink in return?
>
> My last unwritten thought here was that it might be best to grab the
>
Can I entice anyone else into looking at this PR? I think I am
missing the boat entirely.
My last unwritten thought here was that it might be best to grab the
pid before returning.
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:41 AM
Subject:
It's been a year, and seems to be a good time to revisit this topic
while those folks who are present at ApacheCon can discuss f2f
the merits of bringing the 2.2.x chapter to a close, and share their
thoughts back here on-list.
According to
I believe this is the right patch (or close to correct) for 2.4 branch, and
perhaps
even trunk with additional refactoring.
In the case of resuming a thread, it should be up to the event/advanced MPM
to reflect the correct no-info | [connection-info [request-info]] state of
the conn
at the time
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> ISTM that the request line has already been clobbered (blanked) by the
> previous call to ap_update_child_status_from_conn(SERVER_BUSY_READ) in
> ap_process_http_[a]sync_connection(), where we already lost the
>
Zitat von William A Rowe Jr :
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Michael Kaufmann
wrote:
William is right, this is not a good idea. The ->aborted flag should serve
this purpose of telling anyone interested that this connection is not
longer