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: svn commit: r957235 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/cache/mod_socache_dbm.c modules/cache/mod_socache_dc.c modules/cache/mod_socache_shmcb.c
Date Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:06:46 GMT
On 6/23/2010 4:33 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> 
> On 23 Jun 2010, at 16:54, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cache/mod_socache_dbm.c (original)
>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cache/mod_socache_dbm.c Wed Jun 23 15:04:57 2010
>>> @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ static apr_status_t socache_dbm_retrieve
>>>     rc = apr_dbm_fetch(dbm, dbmkey, &dbmval);
>>>     if (rc != APR_SUCCESS) {
>>>         apr_dbm_close(dbm);
>>> -        return rc;
>>> +        return APR_NOTFOUND;
>>
>> The other two changes were fine, but why truncate an apr_status_t value?!?
> 
> Startingpoint was empirical testing: mod_authn_socache with dbm backend
> was getting incorrect return values.
> 
> A look at the apr_dbm source shows uncertainty over mapping DBM errors
> to APR status, including blanket use of APR_EGENERAL.  Didn't see an
> obvious fix.

Well, please don't break an API that works.  Could you revert that bit and
we can continue to study what appropriate, specific codes should be NOTFOUND?

Maybe APR_EEXIST is the current error?

Mime
View raw message