On 09/27/2006 12:22 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Are we sure that we do not iterate too often ( 100) over this during
the lifetime
of a request? I would say 'No, we do not iterate too often', but I
think a crosscheck
by someone else is a good idea. Otherwise we would
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Graham Leggett wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Are we sure that we do not iterate too often ( 100) over this during the
lifetime
of a request? I would say 'No, we do not iterate too often', but I think a
crosscheck
by someone else is a good idea. Otherwise we would have a
On Wed, September 27, 2006 10:12 am, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
We would copy the body once per request, surely? That's how I read it -
copy_body would be called once, resulting in the buffer being declared
once, and reused inside the copy_body loop.
Yes, of course. Stupid thought of mine. It had
On 26/09/2006, at 17:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Tue Sep 26 13:35:42 2006
New Revision: 450188
+
+char *buf = apr_palloc(p, CACHE_BUF_SIZE);
+if (!buf) {
+return APR_ENOMEM;
+}
IIRC, apache abort()s on memory allocation errors.
--
Davi Arnaut
On 09/26/2006 10:35 PM, wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Tue Sep 26 13:35:42 2006
New Revision: 450188
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cache/mod_disk_cache.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cache/mod_disk_cache.c?view=diffrev=450188r1=450187r2=450188
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Are we sure that we do not iterate too often ( 100) over this during the
lifetime
of a request? I would say 'No, we do not iterate too often', but I think a
crosscheck
by someone else is a good idea. Otherwise we would have a potential temporary
memory
leak here.
We
