Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 76.96.62.56 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [Patch] Async write completion for the full connection filter
 stack
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <715A3AE8-8015-4537-943F-A34E0E2A76F7@sharp.fm>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 11:52:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7EA895A-9C37-4387-AE89-C1B7DF9B0706@jaguNET.com>
References: <A57B894B-50DA-4252-8FFF-C3DEF8473A61@sharp.fm>
 <D4B68B53-592F-4EEC-B39F-EFC9887F60D5@jaguNET.com>
 <715A3AE8-8015-4537-943F-A34E0E2A76F7@sharp.fm>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org

Gotcha... +1
On Sep 8, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:

> On 08 Sep 2014, at 3:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>=20
>> This is pretty cool... haven't played too much with it, but
>> via inspection I like the implementation.
>>=20
>> One question:
>>=20
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> --- server/util_filter.c	(revision 1622873)
>> +++ server/util_filter.c	(working copy)
>> @@ -566,6 +566,16 @@
>> {
>>    if (next) {
>>        apr_bucket *e;
>> +        unsigned int activity;
>> +        int empty =3D APR_BRIGADE_EMPTY(bb);
>> +        apr_status_t status;
>> ...
>> +        while (APR_SUCCESS =3D=3D status && empty) {
>> +            next =3D next->next;
>> +            if (next && next->c->activity =3D=3D activity) {
>> +                status =3D next->frec->filter_func.out_func(next, =
bb);
>> +            }
>> +            else {
>> +                break;
>> +            }
>> +        }
>> +
>> +        return status;
>>=20
>> Why does while check for empty? Wouldn't it be faster to
>> wrap that while in a 'if (empty)' ? It would safe an
>> addition check on a var that doesn't change on each loop
>> thru the while().
>=20
> It would - that was originally an if that became a while when I =
realised we had to compensate for multiple filters not calling =
ap_pass_brigade(), instead of just one.
>=20
> The new patch takes out empty completely and instead tracks =
c->data_in_output_filters, which could change during the loop.
>=20
> Regards,
> Graham
> =97
>=20