DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30730>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30730 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-29 14:41 ------- The patch is generated against 2.2.x branch. I will check to see if the issue reproduces on trunk. Regarding Jim's question " > Why the increment_bytes() function? Why not delete that, and have ap_increment_counts() call >ap_increment_bytes() directly (passing sb)? If we call ap_increment_bytes directly then ap_increment_bytes will obtain the worker_score pointer again by calling : ws = &ap_scoreboard_image->servers[sb->child_num][sb->thread_num]; Since ap_increment_count already have the ws pointer so I felt it is bit more cleaner to have a separate static function which takes worker_score as a pointer. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
