httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian Havard" <bri...@kheldar.apana.org.au>
Subject Re: apache 2.0.11 - tag 2.0.12?
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:54:41 GMT
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 07:49:13 -0800 (PST), rbb@covalent.net wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Brian Havard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 06:56:37 -0800 (PST), rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>>
>> >> No need, I've think I've got to the bottom of it now. It appears that the
>> >> OS/2 implementation of writev() chokes if the total bytes > 64k. It returns
>> >> EINVAL but server/core.c:3189 says /* XXX: log the error */ rather than
>> >> actually logging the error :-(
>> >
>> >Cool.
>> >
>> >> So what's a reliable way to ensure no more than 64k gets writev()'d? I
>> >> guess I should break it up appropriately in apr_sendv() as it's most likely
>> >> an OS/2 only problem.
>> >
>> >Could you do it in core_output_filter?  We should NEVER be writing that
>> >much one time anyway, so putting it in the core should help us see it,
>> >along with a debug message about writing too much?
>>
>> Well I noticed that the content length filter set aside ALL of
>> mod_include's output. I guess that's why core_output_filter got hit with it
>> all at once.
>
>That's bogus.  The content length filter should almost NEVER set aside
>that much data.  There is a bug there.

Well yeah, it should be chunking, it was an HTTP/1.1 request. That's what
1.3 does.

-- 
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 |  Brian Havard                 |  "He is not the messiah!                   |
 |  brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au  |  He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message