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

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
for Windows bug#52476) 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

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 ruediger.pl

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
: gmane.comp.apache.devel To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476 This patch is testing great so far with the AcceptFilter-none+SSL scenario on Windows. Index: server/core_filters.c === --- server/core_filters.c

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

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-10 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Sadly, it won't fix the defect. Yes, you are successfullly performing a blocking initial read.

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-10 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Sadly, it won't fix

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-10 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better

RE: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH)
Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Thanks Claudio From: Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:claud...@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 11:13 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Fix for Windows bug#52476 Please code review the fix and let me know if you

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) claud...@microsoft.com wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. I tested and seemed to get good results, but my testing isn't reproducible enough with/without various patches to be conclusive. A couple of

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) claud...@microsoft.com wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. I tested and seemed to get good results, but my testing isn't

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) claud...@microsoft.com wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review.

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH)

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Sadly, it won't fix the defect. Yes, you are successfullly performing a blocking initial read. And the pipe remains unblocked for the rest of the connection, so any further