On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <[email protected]> wrote: > > From a brief view looks good, but you miss to adjust ps->keep_alive in case > that keepalives are killed due to busy workers.
Thanks for the review, fixed in the version I'm currently testing. > And I don't get why we need this additional num = 0. When apr_pollset_poll() returns an error, 'num' is not really/always reliable (c.f. recent r1755758, and corresponding backports to APR 1.5/1.6]). We better not fall through num > 0 here... Regards, Yann.
