On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here is the corresponding patch. > > > I don't know if it's your mail client or mine (gmail), your patches always > come through as both an attachment and in the body. Usually for anything > more than a few lines, attachment-only is best.
It's me, I though some prefer patches in the body while others as attachment. I will use only attachments for such big diff next times. > > Can you say roughly how much it has changed, I was largely through a review > of the previous patch. > Actually, aside from funcs/vars/params renaming, the only difference is ap_proxy_fill_hdrbrgd() and its use in stream_reqbody_chunked(), so that trailers_in are forwarded. All the remaining was already there in the previous patch. I plan now to implement the RFC checks in a trailer_parser (really last) hook, is this the way to go?
