httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Event and atomics, round II
Date Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:26:03 GMT
Yes, it is complete.

On Dec 31, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Falco Schwarz <hiding@falco.me> wrote:

> Our company would have run into the problem, though I knew it beforehand and avoided
the problem on affected servers by switching back to prefork. We have setup our servers to
build all shared mpms anyways, so this wasn’t a big problem.
> 
> All the affected systems were in fact 32bit SLES (10 and 11). Is your workaround started
in trunk complete? I would like to test if the problem is solved by the workaround on affected
systems.
> 
> 
> On 16 Dec 2013, at 16:25, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> 
>> Now that 2.4.7 has been out for awhile, I would have assumed
>> that if people were hitting the "atomics not working as
>> expected" error (using unsigned as signed), we would have
>> started hearing about it... But, afaik, we haven't.
>> 
>> So this leads me to the following discussion: should we stay
>> with the "workaround" started in
>> 
>> 	http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1545286
>> 
>> where we use an zero-point offset, or go back to the old method,
>> or do something else?
> 


Mime
View raw message