Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 38900 invoked by uid 500); 31 Dec 2000 23:02:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 38889 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2000 23:02:29 -0000 Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Finally found the problems. :-( In-Reply-To: <20001231150354.B9752@lyra.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N > There was also the issue that I asked once: after a BRIGADE_CONCAT, we need > to destroy the second brigade, right? Maybe there should be a utility > function that appends a second brigade to the first, then destroys the > second. Use that everywhere rather than BRIGADE_CONCAT (in fact, we could > remove the latter and directly use the RING macros within the function). This is untrue. After a BRIGADE_CONCAT, we do not need to destroy the second brigade. Brigades are allocated out of a pool, and they are very small. We are actually better off just letting the pool stuff take care of this. If we destroy the pool right away, we are just wasting time in the middle of the request. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------