Steve Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I just apply the util.c change (i.e. drop the NOCLEANUP and
SHARELOCK flags, but continue using perl.exe and httpd.exe for the
upload tests) then all the tests still seem to pass anyway, but I do
then see some stray apreqXX files left over in my temp
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Steve Hay wrote:
I tried your patch with the current svn version (revision 518242), but
I'm still seeing intermittent failures (usually in tests 15, 16 and/or
20) either when I run nmake test from the top-level, or when I run:
perl -Iblib/arch
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Randy, do you know why we use the APR_FILE_NOCLEANUP flag? Maybe
we should just remove that and see if it fixes the problem Vinay
is seeing.
Hi Steve, and all,
If you remember from
Steve Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tried your patch with the current svn version (revision 518242), but I'm
still seeing intermittent failures (usually in tests 15, 16 and/or 20) either
when I run nmake test from the top-level, or when I run:
perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib t/TEST -verbose=1
On 3/12/07, Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, lets presume DeleteFile() is failing, and passing
that error along to apr_file_remove(). In apreq_file_cleaup
let's then try what cygwin does in its unlink implementation:
opening the file again (using the apr API) with the
Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Randy Kobes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Removing the APR_FILE_NOCLEANUP would, I think, bring
us back to the problem described at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11533762941r=1w=2
for which this was introduced, in that some Win32 systems
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Vinay Y S wrote:
Actually, either my earlier patch which adds a apr_file_close in
apreq_file_cleanup or just removing the APR_FILE_NOCLEANUP from the
flags(patch attached) is enough. Both together isn't required. (but
it's safe as the cleanup handler installed by apr would
Randy Kobes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Vinay Y S wrote:
Actually, either my earlier patch which adds a apr_file_close in
apreq_file_cleanup or just removing the APR_FILE_NOCLEANUP from the
flags(patch attached) is enough. Both together isn't required. (but
it's safe as
On 3/11/07, Randy Kobes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Randy, do you know why we use the APR_FILE_NOCLEANUP flag? Maybe
we should just remove that and see if it fixes the problem Vinay
is seeing.
Hi Steve, and all,
If you remember from
Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vinay Y S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a problem with apreq temp file cleanup on win32. For each
POST request with POST body greater than 256KB, TWO temp files of
exact same size get created in temp directory and they are not deleted
even after
Vinay Y S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a problem with apreq temp file cleanup on win32. For each
POST request with POST body greater than 256KB, TWO temp files of
exact same size get created in temp directory and they are not deleted
even after the request is handled. They get deleted
On 3/9/07, Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
flag = APR_CREATE | APR_READ | APR_WRITE | APR_EXCL | APR_BINARY;
/* Win32 needs the following to remove temp files.
* XXX: figure out why the APR_SHARELOCK flag works;
* a grep through the httpd sources seems to indicate
*
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Vinay Y S wrote:
On 3/9/07, Joe Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
flag = APR_CREATE | APR_READ | APR_WRITE | APR_EXCL | APR_BINARY;
/* Win32 needs the following to remove temp files.
* XXX: figure out why the APR_SHARELOCK flag works;
* a grep through the
There is a problem with apreq temp file cleanup on win32. For each
POST request with POST body greater than 256KB, TWO temp files of
exact same size get created in temp directory and they are not deleted
even after the request is handled. They get deleted when apache server
is stopped.
To
14 matches
Mail list logo
