On 08 Sep 2014, at 3:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> This is pretty cool... haven't played too much with it, but
> via inspection I like the implementation.
>
> One question:
>
> ===================================================================
> --- server/util_filter.c (revision 1622873)
> +++ server/util_filter.c (working copy)
> @@ -566,6 +566,16 @@
> {
> if (next) {
> apr_bucket *e;
> + unsigned int activity;
> + int empty = APR_BRIGADE_EMPTY(bb);
> + apr_status_t status;
> ...
> + while (APR_SUCCESS == status && empty) {
> + next = next->next;
> + if (next && next->c->activity == activity) {
> + status = next->frec->filter_func.out_func(next, bb);
> + }
> + else {
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return status;
>
> Why does while check for empty? Wouldn't it be faster to
> wrap that while in a 'if (empty)' ? It would safe an
> addition check on a var that doesn't change on each loop
> thru the while().
It would - that was originally an if that became a while when I realised we had
to compensate for multiple filters not calling ap_pass_brigade(), instead of
just one.
The new patch takes out empty completely and instead tracks
c->data_in_output_filters, which could change during the loop.
Regards,
Graham
—
