Cool.. Are these candidates for 2.4.x? On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> > >> -----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 >
