On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
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?
Could be... It's been a LONG time since I looked at this
MPM :)
