On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/13/2015 08:59 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks again! >> >> You're welcome ;) >> >> WDYT of the following? >> (cosmetic only, but helps read/reuse-ability a bit) >> >> Index: modules/ssl/ssl_util_stapling.c >> =================================================================== >> --- modules/ssl/ssl_util_stapling.c (revision 1679195) >> +++ modules/ssl/ssl_util_stapling.c (working copy) >> @@ -250,13 +250,11 @@ static BOOL stapling_cache_response(server_rec *s, >> >> i2d_OCSP_RESPONSE(rsp, &p); >> >> - if (mc->stapling_cache->flags & AP_SOCACHE_FLAG_NOTMPSAFE) >> - stapling_cache_mutex_on(s); >> + stapling_cache_mutex_on(s); >> rv = mc->stapling_cache->store(mc->stapling_cache_context, s, >> cinf->idx, sizeof(cinf->idx), >> expiry, resp_der, stored_len, pool); >> - if (mc->stapling_cache->flags & AP_SOCACHE_FLAG_NOTMPSAFE) >> - stapling_cache_mutex_off(s); >> + stapling_cache_mutex_off(s); > > > At the moment I very slightly prefer seeing the reminder that there isn't > always a mutex, but I won't care before long. I prefer that this matches > the implementation of the session cache mutex on where the socache flag is > checked, but if it makes you happy and you change the session cache > equivalent to match then go for it :)
Nope, I have no strong opinion either, let's keep it as is, that makes sense.
