On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> is the "rc" check just covering further bases? Should we trace or set >>> a note here? >> >> For me "rc" would catch at least the DECLINED case (no hook at all), >> though it may not possibly happen with default builtin http module >> (does --with-http=shared work?). >> I also think that it's easier for a module which asks for the MPM to >> finish the connection, to simply return an error in a >> process_connection hook than something like OK + CONN_STATE_LINGER (+- >> c->aborted = 1), . > > Maybe the header could be clarified one way or another.
Done (hopefully) in r1818951, does it work for you? > >> I'd be fine with a c->notes, but wouldn't that be useful for a >> pre_close_connection hook only? >> Or do you mean an ap_log_cerror() at some specific level (which I'd be >> fine with too)? > > Yes, I guess notes are not so useful for such an early failure. Maybe > ap_log_cerror() at some traceN level would be good. Also in r1818951. Regards, Yann.