On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 09:08:26AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/10/2007 08:40 AM, Plüm wrote:
That was the goal of my diagnostic patch: Finding out if we have a pool
issue. Looks like we have. I guess the
Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/10/2007 08:40 AM, Plüm wrote:
That was the goal of my diagnostic patch: Finding out if we have a pool
issue. Looks like we have. I guess the right fix is as you say
to use the parent pool (process scope).
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Looking at the scope of all these static calls, I really believe the
patch is this simple (process-pool survives the entire httpd);
Sorry - scratch that. I wasn't counting the frequency of pstrdup calls.
Just begging for
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. September 2007 09:47
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: SSL_VERSION_LIBRARY
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Looking at the scope of all
I have tested the patch and it works fine. Thanks a lot.
On 12/09/07 13:14, Plüm wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. September 2007 09:47
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: SSL_VERSION_LIBRARY
Plüm wrote:
Also looks good for me. Thanks for working this out.
Mind to attach this patch to PR43334
(https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43334)
so that people there can test?
Better yet, committed the patch to trunk and pointed the url @ the commit.
On Sep 12, 2007, at 3:47 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Looking at the scope of all these static calls, I really believe the
patch is this simple (process-pool survives the entire httpd);
Sorry - scratch that. I wasn't counting the
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/10/2007 08:40 AM, Plüm wrote:
That was the goal of my diagnostic patch: Finding out if we have a pool
issue. Looks like we have. I guess the right fix is as you say
to use the parent pool (process scope).
Not 100%
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Joe Orton
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. September 2007 11:35
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: SSL_VERSION_LIBRARY
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/10/2007 08:40 AM, Plüm wrote:
That was the goal of my
What with this and the Win32/apr issues, seems to me that
we should consider a 2.2.7 out soonish :)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
What with this and the Win32/apr issues, seems to me that
we should consider a 2.2.7 out soonish :)
I was about to suggest the same :)
With Win32/APR there isn't a fix. Not yet at least, Tom Donovan and I are
going back and forth with ideas that break the fewest binaries
Looking at the scope of all these static calls, I really believe the
patch is this simple (process-pool survives the entire httpd);
Index: ssl_engine_vars.c
===
--- ssl_engine_vars.c (revision 574494)
+++ ssl_engine_vars.c
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Looking at the scope of all these static calls, I really believe the
patch is this simple (process-pool survives the entire httpd);
Sorry - scratch that. I wasn't counting the frequency of pstrdup calls.
Just begging for optimization :)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2007 07:50
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: SSL_VERSION_LIBRARY
Zvi Har'El wrote:
This looks similar to PR 43334
(https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43334).
Could
On 09/10/2007 08:40 AM, Plüm wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2007 07:50
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: SSL_VERSION_LIBRARY
Zvi Har'El wrote:
This looks similar to PR 43334
15 matches
Mail list logo