Status Update:
The pid-table code is:
o Applied to 1.3 branch
o In httpd-2.0-pid-table branch (branches/2.0.x fork)
o In httpd-2.2-pid-table branch (branches/2.2.x fork)
o In httpd-pid-table branch (trunk fork)
Passes httpd-tests, as well as 'ab' with *very* small
On 06/16/2007 05:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Status Update:
The pid-table code is:
o Applied to 1.3 branch
o In httpd-2.0-pid-table branch (branches/2.0.x fork)
o In httpd-2.2-pid-table branch (branches/2.2.x fork)
o In httpd-pid-table branch (trunk fork)
Passes
On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
In the meantime, should I create a 2.2 branch for the 2.2-version
of the pid_table code and backport the changes to that?
Unless I hear otherwise, I'll likely do that since the
backport from 2.2 to 2.0 shouldn't be that involved.
Done and
It looks the the 1.3 pid_table impl is pretty much on target.
I've been testing the trunk (2.3.x) version with no issues that
I've been able to see, but was wondering how many others
are testing...
In the meantime, should I create a 2.2 branch for the 2.2-version
of the pid_table code and
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: David McCreedy
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 04:29
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r543511 -
/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/src/main/http_main.c
June 04, 2007 5:51 PM David McCreedy wrote:
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:29 PM, David McCreedy wrote:
June 04, 2007 5:51 PM David McCreedy wrote:
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I squashed those. Could you check out
trunk and try another test? Thanks!
It fixes the Bad pid error but I'm not sure all is well...
On
: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:45 AM
Subject: AW: svn commit: r543511 -
/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/src/main/http_main.c
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: David McCreedy
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 04:29
An: dev@httpd.apache.orgmailto:dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Fri Jun 1 08:42:57 2007
New Revision: 543511
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=543511http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=543511
Log:
Add in parent process PID table, to provide
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:35 AM, David McCreedy wrote:
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Fri Jun 1 08:42:57 2007
New Revision: 543511
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=543511
Log:
Add in parent process PID table, to provide for
a check against
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:35 AM, David McCreedy wrote:
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Fri Jun 1 08:42:57 2007
New Revision: 543511
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=543511
Log:
Add in parent process PID table, to provide for
a check against
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I squashed those. Could you check out
trunk and try another test? Thanks!
It fixes the Bad pid error but I'm not sure all is well...
On TPF we're not calling unset_pid_table on SIG_IDLE_KILLs.
I'll have to track
June 04, 2007 5:51 PM David McCreedy wrote:
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I squashed those. Could you check out
trunk and try another test? Thanks!
It fixes the Bad pid error but I'm not sure all is well...
On TPF we're not calling
On 06/01/2007 05:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Fri Jun 1 08:42:57 2007
New Revision: 543511
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=543511
Log:
Add in parent process PID table, to provide for
a check against the pid values located in the
scoreboard.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
For my understanding (and a bit of devils advocate here :-)): Why do we use a
table here and not a fixed size array (HARD_SERVER_LIMIT) of ints (apr_array
of
pid_t in the 2.x case). If we keep the pids at the same index as in the
scoreboard the checks would be
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
For my understanding (and a bit of devils advocate here :-)): Why do we use a
table here and not a fixed size array (HARD_SERVER_LIMIT) of ints (apr_array
of
pid_t in the 2.x case). If we keep the pids at the same index as in the
scoreboard the
15 matches
Mail list logo
