Hi Yann,
Am 25.01.2017 um 01:41 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Stefan Eissing
> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>> Yann, thanks for the patch. I agree that the cleanups need to be killed in
>> the right place. Not certain if it was wrong before, but that part is not
>> easy to see for every combination.
>>
>> I did some rework and hope this makes it more readable. If you find the time
>> to look at it, feedback welcome.
>
> I still fear that if beam->pool gets destroyed while both
> beam_send_cleanup() and beam_cleanup() are registered, the former is
> called twice.
>
> I'd change:
> if (safe_send) {
> if (beam->send_pool && beam->send_pool != beam->pool) {
> apr_pool_cleanup_kill(beam->send_pool, beam, beam_send_cleanup);
> }
> status = beam_send_cleanup(beam);
> }
>
> with:
> if (safe_send) {
> if (beam->send_pool) {
> if (beam->send_pool != beam->pool) {
> apr_pool_cleanup_kill(beam->send_pool, beam,
> beam_send_cleanup);
> }
> status = beam_send_cleanup(beam);
> }
> }
>
> since in the above case beam_send_cleanup is run first and sets
> send_pool=NULL.
>
> Attached v3 with this only change w.r.t. v2.
> Otherwise, looks good to me, thanks!
this one also contains changes to the even mpm, mod_proxy and
mod_slotmem_shm. Is this expected?
Stefan
>
