On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:06:19 -0800
Neil McKee wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A new module that exports log data using the sFlow protocol is available for
> review:
>
> http://mod-sflow.googlecode.com
I started to look at it, then got distracted.
Five-minute review:
(1) It looks well-formed as a mod
Am 10.01.2011 21:26, schrieb Stefan Fritsch:
BTW, gcc has -Wdeclaration-after-statement to catch these things.
Should we add that to the default warnings enabled in maintainer mode?
+2 - NetWare compiler cant deal with either;
and +1 to treat it even as error rather than warning:
-Werror=declara
upon module initialization the registered configuration function is called.
the
module calls the same configuration function upon stop/restart of the apache
httpd worker processes. the problem i'm experiencing is the variables within
the configuration struct i've specified for the module are
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:22, Neil McKee wrote:
> I pushed changes to:
>
> 1. use PIPE_BUF from limits.h (if available).
> 2. use apr_file_pipe_timeout_set(, 0) on both ends -- just to make
> absolutely certain that the writes from the critical section are always
> non-blocking.
> 3. use apr
It logs the fd, core file size, file size, and number of process
limits at level trace1.
The platform check is not so pretty (low-level feature checks similar
to those for the RLimit* directives) but OTOH it would be more
boilerplate code that has to be added to most MPMs.
Any thoughts on improvi
On Thursday 06 January 2011, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> > > {
> > >
> > > -request_rec *rp = apr_pcalloc(r->pool, sizeof(*r));
> > > +apr_pool_t *pool;
> > > +
> > > +apr_pool_create(&pool, c->pool);
> > > +
> > > +request_rec *rp = apr_pcalloc(pool, sizeof(*r));
> > >
> > >
On Monday 10 January 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > Thought experiment: supposing everything were merged into a
> > single configuration walk. What could that look like, and what
> > breaks?
>
> Essentially, each request and sub-request would have to redundantly
> re-merge many prior merges
On 1/10/2011 12:21 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> Thought experiment: supposing everything were merged into a single
> configuration walk. What could that look like, and what breaks?
Essentially, each request and sub-request would have to redundantly
re-merge many prior merges as and other conditions
On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:52:48 +0100
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> I am open for ideas how to solve these problems. One idea I had is the
> following:
>
> Create a new function ap_if_walk() that handles the sections and
> is called after ap_location_walk(). Store the sections in a
> separate array c
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:31 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 1/10/2011 10:44 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
>> On 01/07/2011 08:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> For right now, APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY and APR_HAS_THREADS
>>> should be dropped for 2.3/2.4. I'd be happy with that for
>>> now ;)
>>
>> +
On 1/10/2011 10:44 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 01/07/2011 08:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> For right now, APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY and APR_HAS_THREADS
>> should be dropped for 2.3/2.4. I'd be happy with that for
>> now ;)
>
> +1
>
> I raised that question few years back and was told
> that the r
On 01/07/2011 08:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
For right now, APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY and APR_HAS_THREADS
should be dropped for 2.3/2.4. I'd be happy with that for
now ;)
+1
I raised that question few years back and was told
that the reason for (at least APR_HAS_THREAD) was
not the lack of os s
12 matches
Mail list logo
