Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-03-01 Thread André Malo
* Jeff Trawick wrote: > if it changes code from prior release and it is user visible, log it; > otherwise, probably not if you ask me unless it is something really big > like making mod_rewrite easier to read :) hehehe ;-) Actually a lot of things in mod_rewrite can be simplified and implemented

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-28 Thread Jeff Trawick
Stas Bekman wrote: > Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > Stas Bekman wrote: > > > >> Should I update Changes for this fix as well? > > > > I was asking whether I should have also logged this last change: > >AP_CORE_DECLARE(void) ap_process_connection(conn_rec *c, void *csd) >{ > -apr_status_t

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-28 Thread Stas Bekman
Jeff Trawick wrote: Stas Bekman wrote: Should I update Changes for this fix as well? personally I would have put something like this in changes: *) Fix a segfault when a pre_connection hook fails the connection. [name] That has been added already. I was asking whether I should have also log

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-28 Thread Jeff Trawick
Stas Bekman wrote: Should I update Changes for this fix as well? personally I would have put something like this in changes: *) Fix a segfault when a pre_connection hook fails the connection. [name]

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-28 Thread Stas Bekman
Jeff Trawick wrote: Stas Bekman wrote: So, everybody agrees that it should be: -apr_status_t rc; +int rc; correct? yes! Thanks you Jeff. I've committed the fix. Should I update Changes for this fix as well? __ Stas Bekman

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-28 Thread Jeff Trawick
Stas Bekman wrote: So, everybody agrees that it should be: -apr_status_t rc; +int rc; correct? yes!

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-27 Thread Stas Bekman
Jeff Trawick wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: They should, ap_run_pre_connection is an Apache hook. Yes, it returns an int, so the only change here should be >> -apr_status_t rc; >> +int rc; We aren't calling apr_ function here, and hooks always allow OK, DONE, or (result). ahh, tha

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-27 Thread Jeff Trawick
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: They should, ap_run_pre_connection is an Apache hook. Yes, it returns an int, so the only change here should be >> -apr_status_t rc; >> +int rc; We aren't calling apr_ function here, and hooks always allow OK, DONE, or (result). ahh, that's the missing piece

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-26 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 03:32 AM 2/26/2003, Greg Stein wrote: >On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:25:21PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>... >> +++ connection.c25 Feb 2003 23:25:19 - 1.108 >> @@ -199,10 +199,14 @@ >> >>AP_CORE_DECLARE(void) ap_process_connection(conn_rec *c, void *csd) >>{ >>

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-26 Thread Jeff Trawick
Greg Stein wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:25:21PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK and DONE are not apr_status_t values. If you're truly returning a status, then you simply check for non-zero (or != APR_SUCCESS). If you truly want to return OK/DONE types of values, then the type of rc shou

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server connection.c

2003-02-26 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:25:21PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >... > +++ connection.c25 Feb 2003 23:25:19 - 1.108 > @@ -199,10 +199,14 @@ > >AP_CORE_DECLARE(void) ap_process_connection(conn_rec *c, void *csd) >{ > +apr_status_t rc; >ap_update_vhost_gi