Re: svn commit: r1372054 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util.c

2012-08-13 Thread Daniel Gruno
On 08/12/2012 03:15 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: humbed...@apache.org wrote: Author: humbedooh Date: Sun Aug 12 07:45:55 2012 New Revision: 1372054 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1372054view=rev Log: core: Be less strict when checking whether Content-Type is set to

Re: svn commit: r1372054 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util.c

2012-08-13 Thread Nick Kew
On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:15, Ruediger Pluem wrote: ap_strcmp_match seems to be a lot of overhead for just prefix matching a string. How about strncmp(application/x-www-form-urlencoded, ct, 33) Either way, shouldn't it be a case-insensitive match? -- Nick Kew

RE: svn commit: r1372054 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util.c

2012-08-13 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group
-Original Message- From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@webthing.com] Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 13:11 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r1372054 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES server/util.c On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:15, Ruediger Pluem wrote: ap_strcmp_match seems

core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently. I wonder if that call is stray and it doesn't get along with the timeout handling on Windows

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-13 Thread Apache Lounge
Also here it is running now without issues till now here with AcceptFilter-none+SSL Steffen -Original Message- From: Jeff Trawick Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:43 PM Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476 This patch is

Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently. I wonder if that call is

RE: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group
-Original Message- From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com] Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476) On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: We picked

Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com] Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for

RE: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group
-Original Message- From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:] Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 15:35 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476) On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Apache Lounge i...@apachelounge.com wrote: Also here it is running now without issues till now here with AcceptFilter-none+SSL awesome/thanks! Steffen -Original Message- From: Jeff Trawick Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:43 PM Newsgroups:

Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Joe Orton
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:27:08AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: Does that explanation work for you? Yes, perfectly, thanks for taking the time. I stupidly forgot about the timeout calls... sorry! Regards, Joe

How to align shm in an neat way?

2012-08-13 Thread Rainer Jung
Hi, PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of the three structs mapped into shm contains an apr_time_t member, which at least on Sparc is 8 Bytes, whereas for 32 bit builds long is only 4 Bytes. Currently everything is aligned for 4 Bytes, so we get bus

Re: How to align shm in an neat way?

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: Hi, PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of the three structs mapped into shm contains an apr_time_t member, which at least on Sparc is 8 Bytes, whereas for 32 bit builds long is

Re: How to align shm in an neat way?

2012-08-13 Thread Rainer Jung
On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: Hi, PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of the three structs mapped into shm contains an apr_time_t member, which at least on Sparc is 8

Re: How to align shm in an neat way?

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: Hi, PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an alignment problem. One of the three structs

Re: How to align shm in an neat way?

2012-08-13 Thread Rainer Jung
On 13.08.2012 19:40, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: Hi, PR 53040 reveals, that mod_socache_shmcb has an

Re: How to align shm in an neat way?

2012-08-13 Thread Rainer Jung
On 13.08.2012 21:02, Rainer Jung wrote: On 13.08.2012 19:40, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 13.08.2012 18:32, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: Hi, PR 53040