> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Montag, 19. März 2012 15:31 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1302444 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES > modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c > > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 9:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c > > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy. > c?rev=1302444&r1=1302443&r2=1302444&view=diff > > > ======================================================================= > ======= > > --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original) > > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Mon Mar 19 13:53:28 > 2012 > > @@ -2461,11 +2461,11 @@ static void child_init(apr_pool_t *p, se > > ap_proxy_hashfunc(reverse->s->name, > PROXY_HASHFUNC_FNV); > > /* Do not disable worker in case of errors */ > > reverse->s->status |= PROXY_WORKER_IGNORE_ERRORS; > > - conf->reverse = reverse; > > ap_proxy_initialize_worker(conf->reverse, s, conf->pool); > > /* Disable address cache for generic reverse worker */ > > reverse->s->is_address_reusable = 0; > > } > > + conf->reverse = reverse; > > s = s->next; > > } > > } > > > > Is that right? Doesn't that mean that the ap_proxy_initialize_worker() > call gets an unknown/undefined 1st arg (conf->reverse)??
Yes :-). The original reporter already pointed that out. Fixed in r1302483. Regards Rüdiger
