Le 29/05/2018 à 21:53, Ruediger Pluem a écrit :
+ rv = apr_file_read_full(fp, digest, APR_MD5_DIGESTSIZE,
NULL);
+ if (rv == APR_SUCCESS || rv == APR_EOF) {
.....
+ else if (rv == APR_SUCCESS || rv == APR_EOF) {
+ rv = APR_INCOMPLETE;
Hm, how can the condition in else if ever be true? We only get to else if rv is
neither APR_SUCCESS or APR_EOF.
Regards
Rüdiger
Also, httpd-2.4.x-balancer_slotmem.patch looks incomplete to me (but it
is maybe done on purpose).
The above (spurious) code is not included in the backport proposal.
Also, some code included in r1831871 is also missing. For example,
search for APLOGNO(02551) or APLOGNO(02553) for example. Message and
location have change in r1831871, but not in the backport proposal.
Is it done on purpose?
Moreover, if the semantic of this message has changed, shouldn't we
assign a new number?
Just my 2c.
CJ
