Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACsi252sp8YMT26-rovU_t+d9G1m6CmYT8WGhqzwX0xYG_uaaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170919101744.449403A030D@svn01-us-west.apache.org> <CACsi252sp8YMT26-rovU_t+d9G1m6CmYT8WGhqzwX0xYG_uaaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:18:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKQ1sVP_KzaxqZu8KQSKDVa3-4qShjJxtvOcF7xC_okX9Fp62A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1808855 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./
 CHANGES STATUS docs/manual/ docs/manual/mod/mod_proxy.xml modules/http2/
 modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
To: httpd-dev <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
archived-at: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:18:47 -0000

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:42 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2017 05:17, <jim@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c?rev=1808855&r1=1808854&r2=1808855&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c Tue Sep 19 10:17:40
> 2017
> @@ -103,7 +103,8 @@ static const char *set_worker_param(apr_
>          /* Normalized load factor. Used with BalancerMember,
>           * it is a number between 1 and 100.
>           */
> -        ival = atoi(val);
> +        double fval = atof(val);
> +        ival = fval * 100.0;
>          if (ival < 1 || ival > 100)
>              return "LoadFactor must be a number between 1..100";
>          worker->s->lbfactor = ival;
>
>
> As this patch was obviously never tested by a single reviewer, my
> inclination is to revert this non-feature regression, in order to tag a
> 2.4.29 tomorrow a.m., Windows and OS/X 10.13 ready with the many small fixes
> already committed. Then, let this feature be reintroduced when working, with
> some testing, along with many other enhancements proposed right now but all
> potentially disruptive, as a 2.4.30 to follow soon after a .29 stability
> release.
>
> Thoughts?

Or apply the same thing as r1805206 for the balancer_manager case
(which I tested...).
Looks like a serious regression which shouldn't skip a release IMHO,
can't 2.4.29 wait a bit (if ever, such small fix could be voted quite
quickly)?