Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <47C31C3B.3040100@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:51:23 +0100
From: Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r630323 - in
 /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl:	ssl_engine_config.c
 ssl_private.h ssl_scache.c ssl_scache_dbm.c	ssl_scache_dc.c
 ssl_scache_memcache.c
 ssl_scache_shmcb.c
References: <20080222210943.053A51A9838@eris.apache.org>
 <47C002B4.6010209@apache.org> <20080225105906.GA7265@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080225105906.GA7265@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 02/25/2008 11:59 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:25:40PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> On 02/22/2008 10:09 PM, jorton@apache.org wrote:
>>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_scache.c (original)
>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_scache.c Fri Feb 22 13:09:40 2008
>>> @@ -40,6 +40,20 @@
>>>  void ssl_scache_init(server_rec *s, apr_pool_t *p)
>>>  {
>>>      SSLModConfigRec *mc = myModConfig(s);
>>> +    apr_status_t rv;
>>> +
>>> +    /* ### push this up into scache_init??? */
>>> +    {
>>> +        void *data;
>>> +        const char *userdata_key = "ssl_scache_init";
>>> +
>>> +        apr_pool_userdata_get(&data, userdata_key, s->process->pool);
>>> +        if (!data) {
>>> +            apr_pool_userdata_set((const void *)1, userdata_key,
>>> +                                  apr_pool_cleanup_null, s->process->pool);
>>> +            return;
>> Slightly confused now. This should prevent that we initialize twice correct?
>> If yes, shouldn't the return be in the else branch (aka if apr_pool_userdata_get
>> returns data we have been already here once)?
> 
> Ah, no, that's not quite the intent.  The intent of the code is only to 
> ignore the first post_config run during startup.  It's necessary and 
> correct for this code to initialize the cache for every subsequent 
> invocation of the post_config hook; the configuration may be different 
> each time, and pconf is used as the parent pool for all this stuff (also 
> cleared each time).
> 
> I've updated the comment here in r630805 since it was stale anyway - 
> does that make sense now?

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. This makes now sense to me. So its exactly the
other way round I anticipated: Initialize every time except for the very first
time, correct?

Regards

Rüdiger


>