httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/http http_protocol.c
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:32:09 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/http http_protocol.c


> From: "Jeff Trawick" <trawick@attglobal.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 6:55 AM
> 
> 
> > >   Modified:    modules/http http_protocol.c
> > >   Log:
> > >     Restore to 1.333 state (problematic, in that we could be facing >(size_t)
> > >     bytes, but better till I figure out the _right_ fix.
> 
> > >   -                               &asmuch) != APR_SUCCESS) {
> > >   +                               &r->remaining) != APR_SUCCESS) {
> 
> > I guess you know that r->remaining is apr_off_t but ap_get_brigade()
> > wants apr_size_t *?  (warnings now on AIX at least)
> 
> That's why that (borked) patch went in in the first place, before I reverted.
> 
> > Is there a reason why r->remaining can't be apr_off_t?
> 
> (can't be apr_size_t?)  We aught to transition all the send/recv/byterange
> code to apr_off_t.  What about the converse?  Accept (and limit) an apr_off_t
> to ap_get_brigade?  All the other brigade semantics (except read) take an
> apr_off_t.  (Individual buckets take apr_size_t.)

That made little sense.  I'm suggesting that all the http-layer code should be
ultimately changed to properly support apr_off_t, the raw read/write stuff has
to be apr_size_t (it's in memory after all, and sendfile doesn't appear to really
support apr_off_t ranges on som platforms.)


Mime
View raw message