On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:55 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd explained in another thread this week why this patch is invalid, > and I've gone ahead and reverted. > > We agreed there is a defect here, what about the attached fix?
Looks good, if something bad happened in ap_read_request() we already have responded with ap_send_error_response(). What may be missing is reporting SERVER_BUSY_WRITE (with the partial/bad request) in ap_send_error_response(), and then we'd probably don't need to pass r for SERVER_BUSY_LOG in the error paths of ap_read_request().
