Can we really backport this? We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside the struct.
Regards Rüdiger rj...@apache.org wrote: > Author: rjung > Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014 > New Revision: 1622429 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429 > Log: > Propose. > > Modified: > httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS > > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1622429&r1=1622428&r2=1622429&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014 > @@ -242,6 +242,20 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: > 2.4.x patch: trunk works (except for mod_journald which is not part of > 2.4.x) > +1: jailletc36 > > + * mod_proxy: Increase limits for worker names, routes and > + worker host names. Make worker name truncation a non-fatal > + error. > + mod_slotmem: Increase log level for some originally > + debug messages. > + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1540318 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1621367 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1621372 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1621373 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1621382 > + 2.4.x patch: trunk works (adjust CHANGES) for convenience: > + > http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/proxy-worker-max-name-2_4.patch > + +1: rjung > + > OTHER PROPOSALS > > * A list of further possible backports can be found at: > > >
