Hi,
In my perpetual effort to synch 2.4 and trunk, I have stopped r1787606
as a potential candidate.
However, I don't understand the rational with this patch and wonder if
it should be backported, left as-is in trunk only or removed from trunk.
Why should we avoid timeout and TCP_NODELAY settings for slave connection?
Is it already set some other way, (i.e APR_TCP_NODELAY_INHERITED???)
This patch also makes the 'if (c->master == NULL) {' block at the end of
this function unclear.
Now, we know that c->master != NULL and the logic could be simplified.
Any opinion?
CJ
Le 19/03/2017 à 11:33, [email protected] a écrit :
Author: icing
Date: Sun Mar 19 10:33:43 2017
New Revision: 1787606
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1787606&view=rev
Log:
On the trunk:
core: avoid socket timeout settings etc. on slave connections.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core.c
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core.c?rev=1787606&r1=1787605&r2=1787606&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core.c Sun Mar 19 10:33:43 2017
@@ -5280,9 +5280,14 @@ static conn_rec *core_create_conn(apr_po
static int core_pre_connection(conn_rec *c, void *csd)
{
- core_net_rec *net = apr_palloc(c->pool, sizeof(*net));
+ core_net_rec *net;
apr_status_t rv;
+ if (c->master) {
+ return DONE;
+ }
+
+ net = apr_palloc(c->pool, sizeof(*net));
/* The Nagle algorithm says that we should delay sending partial
* packets in hopes of getting more data. We don't want to do
* this; we are not telnet. There are bad interactions between
