Gotcha... +1
On Sep 8, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> 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
> —
>
