On 06/02/2007 01:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Author: jim > Date: Fri Jun 1 16:44:36 2007 > New Revision: 543667 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=543667 > Log: > Minor nit... be consistent and unset even now :) > > Modified: > httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/mpmt_os2.c > > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/mpmt_os2.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/mpmt_os2.c?view=diff&rev=543667&r1=543666&r2=543667 > ============================================================================== > --- httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/mpmt_os2.c > (original) > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/httpd-pid-table/server/mpm/mpmt_os2/mpmt_os2.c Fri > Jun 1 16:44:36 2007 > @@ -337,6 +337,7 @@ > pid = ap_scoreboard_image->parent[n].pid; > if (ap_in_pid_table(pid)) { > kill(pid, is_graceful ? SIGHUP : SIGTERM); > + ap_unset_pid_table(pid);
Good catch. But is this also correct in the graceful / SIGHUP case? Couldn't it happen that we want to sent a SIGTERM later? Regards Rüdiger
