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
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
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
-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
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
-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
: 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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)
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
