Re: [Bug?] cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 07:05 PM 1/13/2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>    I don't think so because the "split into multiple bucket" code was
>only enabled if both large_file and send_file was enabled.  Which meant
>that on a non-large_file build the check for ENABLE_SENDFILE_OFF wasn't
>there anyway.  If they have large_file support and don't have send_file
>(ie. NetWare), then the file must be split into multiple buckets or it
>doesn't work (32/64 bit type mismatches in the file size).  If they have
>large_file support and send_file, then everything is as it was before. 

What about the case where they did have sendfile, but did not use large
file support?  [Did/Do] we attempt to test the EnableSendfile logic?

If not, perhaps we should.  There are other cases, e.g. some NFS volume
strategies, where a raw kernel sendfile turns out to be fatal on some platforms.


>I'm not sure why a check for ENABLE_SENDFILE_OFF is here anyway.  This
>code doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not sendfile is
>used.  All it does is split a large file into multiple smaller buckets. 
>If later down the line sendfile is used to actually send the file from
>multiple buckets, great.  If not, that is fine also (as demonstrated by
>the fact that NetWare doesn't have sendfile() and it all works fine).

Not arguing that breaking up huge responses is a bad thing :)  However
I'm somewhat confused why apr doesn't handle this gracefully.

Bill