Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03/19/2008 10:22 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:01:35 +0100
Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does the following patch for PR44641 attached by the reporter makes
sense?
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21691
I am a little bit worried that we could use the wrong pool in
register_hooks. So some additional eyes please.
Looks to me like he's right about the bug, and you're right
No doubt about this.
about the pool. Though the pool usage is pretty negligible,
so we could just turn a blind eye to it.
If we want to be fussy, we could create a subpool and destroy
it in post_config.
I am *not* worried about some sort of memory leak with the pool used
by register_hooks. It is the contrary: I am not sure if the register_hooks
pools gets destroyed / cleared too *early* or in between so that we are
pointing
to invalid memory. So please some eyes on this aspect.
What happens is that a module must register itself during config, and
remove itself from the hash during post-config. Hopefully during the
re-config phase it replaces it's own hash registration.
If this doesn't happen and the module is removed from the list during a
graceful restart, there will still be a hash entry into it.
It's possible to do a pconf teardown resetting the hash, but if we reset
while modules are unregistering themselves, we are back to the original
fault.
