httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: Trying to drum up interest in this patch
Date Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:02:09 GMT
On 10/6/2010 5:51 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>  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
>>> 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 was
>>> 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.
> William;
>    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
> 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
> more).
> Bug URL
> Patch notes:
>   I used a constant called PROXY_WORKER_NOLBFACTOR in mod_proxy.h and changed
> 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 divide
> by zero error.

This is precisely the behavior I want, but I'm not in a position to review this
quickly enough for it to make 2.2.17, there are some big fish still to fry for
the release.  I'll add a third pair of eyeballs if someone else can look at this!

View raw message