Oops... yeah, did this too fast ;) As far as which makes the most sense, (call-by-call or forever), both would be best... On Mar 19, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:56 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: jim >> Date: Tue Mar 19 13:56:29 2013 >> New Revision: 1458284 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1458284 >> Log: >> Allow modules to pro-actively bypass the reqtimeout filter (by connection) >> >> Modified: >> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_reqtimeout.c >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_reqtimeout.c >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_reqtimeout.c?rev=1458284&r1=1458283&r2=1458284&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_reqtimeout.c (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_reqtimeout.c Tue Mar 19 13:56:29 >> 2013 >> @@ -177,6 +177,11 @@ static apr_status_t reqtimeout_filter(ap >> apr_interval_time_t saved_sock_timeout = UNSET; >> reqtimeout_con_cfg *ccfg = f->ctx; >> >> + /* connections can bypass the filter even if configured */ >> + if (apr_table_get(f->c->notes, "bypass-reqtimeout")) { >> + return APR_SUCCESS; > > a no-op input filter returns apr_get_brigade(same_params) > > is the idea that this can be tweaked call-by-call, or is it > once-on-bypass-forever, or ??? (I'm thinking about how cheap a check > of a field in the context should be) > >> + } >> + >> if (ccfg->in_keep_alive) { >> /* For this read, the normal keep-alive timeout must be used */ >> ccfg->in_keep_alive = 0; >> >> > > > > -- > Born in Roswell... married an alien... > http://emptyhammock.com/ >
