https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65627
--- Comment #9 from Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> --- (In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #8) > (In reply to Ruediger Pluem from comment #7) > > > > The question is, how we want to allow if at all another module to say that > > we should get out of the way with regards to lingering closes. Do we allow > > to set the socket to NULL via ap_set_core_module_config or do we demand > > that is has to set c->aborted to 1 as you suggest. > > Yeah indeed that's the question. Thinking more about it, c->aborted = 1 will > still call the output filter chain so in the case of mod_itk it may cause > issues (no request_rec in the forking/parent process). > We have supported the NULL socket so far so we probably still need to in > 2.4.x, mpm_prefork (which mpm_itk is still requiring AFAICT) will call > ap_lingering_close() after ap_process_connection() in any case, so it seems > that NULL socket is the only safe option for third-party modules as of now. Fair enough. Then I am fine with the patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-h...@httpd.apache.org
