mån 2006-05-01 klockan 22:46 +1200 skrev Doug Dixon: > Hi > > I've written a patch that is supposed to fix several problems with > how squid3 refreshes stale entries. > > http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1548 > > The following bugs are targeted: > Bug 1548 - Refresh where origin replies 304: cache is not updated, > future requests will still hit origin
Part of "cache is not updated" is also bug #7... > Specific things I'd like comment on: > 1. handleIMSGiveClientUpdatedOldEntry() used to HTTPMSGLOCK and > HTTPMSGUNLOCK the request. Is it okay to remove this? (I'm awaiting > some feedback from Duane on this one) The whole construct with explicit lock/unlock is questioned, but as a rule of thumb anything going into persistent structures such as StoreEntry (and it's references, i.e. MemObj) should keep a lock, even if temporary. This to allow audits of the lock management. > 2. handleIMSGiveClientUpdatedOldEntry() used to set old_entry- > >timestamp to squid_curtime. Was this in fact correct? Yes, but to be correct Bug #7 also needs to be solved and at that time the object time management reinvestigated. We derive quite a bit from the specs today in how we handle time drift. > 3. handleIMSGiveClientNewEntry() used to call processMiss() - this > caused the duplicate request in bug 1561, and has gone. Was there a > reason for doing it this way that still stands? Not that I can think of. Regards Henrik
signature.asc
Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
