>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SNIP]
>
>On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:58:46AM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
>> Sounds good - but you still need to delete the last_e.
>
>This is what I asked before - why? The apr_brigade_destroy(b) call
>deletes the EOC
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:58:46AM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> Sounds good - but you still need to delete the last_e.
This is what I asked before - why? The apr_brigade_destroy(b) call
deletes the EOC bucket along with all the others a few lines further on
AFAICT.
Sounds good - but you still need to delete the last_e.
-Madhu
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Orton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:47 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] followup with EOC bucket type
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 26,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:01:30PM -0800, Mathihalli, Madhusudan wrote:
> Hello,
> Should we just ignore the rest of the processing in
> core_output_filter after deleting the EOC bucket ?
Yes, I think so, but by not leaving last_e pointing at a deleted bucket
it can be done without the
Hello,
Should we just ignore the rest of the processing in core_output_filter after
deleting the EOC bucket ?
-Madhu
Index: server/core.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/server/core.c,v
retrieving revision 1.270
diff -u -r
