> Am 25.01.2017 um 08:04 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
> <s.pri...@profihost.ag>:
>
> 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?
Don't think so.
Yann is a busy man. :)
>
> Stefan
>>
