httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Ruggeri <>
Subject Re: Trying to drum up interest in this patch
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:51:24 GMT
  On 10/5/2010 8:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 10/5/2010 5:41 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>   All;
>>     With the talk about a 2.2.17 coming soon, I would very much like to get the remaining
>> requisite votes and implementation of the patch (48939 - in STATUS currently) I had
>> submitted for inclusion. I know a lot of folks are rather busy these days, but I
>> hoping I could draw attention to this again in hopes of making the 2.2.17 release.
>> P.S.
>>     I would love to include details of this patch in my ApacheConNA 2010 session
as it
>> helps address some of the shortfalls the intelligence shortfalls.
> Just as a suggestion, most of us don't memorize numbers (... for example, I can't
> remember my own kids cell phone numbers, my phone does so for me.)
> So when someone want eyeballs on an issue, please remind us the subject, and if
> it is not too lengthy, attach the patch.  Consider that sometimes our chance to
> react to your email is in the air, devoid of network access, and we are just
> trying to plow through our email queue offline.
> All that said, trawick, niq and wrowe have all reviewed this specific backport,
> and it is in the queue to be applied to 2.2.

    Understood - I was too busy repeating myself in the last sentence I 
didn't think to provide more details. I also must have misread STATUS 
when I checked on this the other day. Thank you for the response.

    On a different note, I recall you brought the topic up about worker 
acquiescence in a planned maintenance situation. I am not sure if folks 
had a chance to review what I brought up, but I have submitted a patch 
to do this. However, I would really prefer input on the patch as I am 
not 100% sure it is ready for proposal in STATUS. Also because, 
technically, one could set the redirect route for the worker and force 
its traffic elsewhere (works fine in a two node situation, but distorts 
load distribution if there are more).


Patch notes:
   I used a constant called PROXY_WORKER_NOLBFACTOR in mod_proxy.h and 
the atoi call during configuration to strtol since atoi. I did this 
because the
atoi call returns 0 both during error situations and when the proper 
value to
return is 0. Also, the existing checks had to be refactored a little 
since (at
least on the SUN c compiler) an uninitialized integer is the same as 
`0'. Aside
from that, only the bybusiness algorithm had to be modified to avoid a 
by zero error.

Daniel Ruggeri

View raw message