You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> on 2011/08/29 18:00:16 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1162881 -
/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, jim@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Mon Aug 29 15:53:52 2011
> New Revision: 1162881
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1162881&view=rev
> Log:
> Allow for actual counting...
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c?rev=1162881&r1=1162880&r2=1162881&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c Mon Aug 29 15:53:52 2011
> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ static apr_status_t copy_brigade_range(a
> if (off_first != start64) {
> rv = apr_bucket_split(copy, (apr_size_t)(start64 - off_first));
> if (rv == APR_ENOTIMPL) {
> + int i;
> rv = apr_bucket_read(copy, &s, &len, APR_BLOCK_READ);
> if (rv != APR_SUCCESS) {
> apr_brigade_cleanup(bbout);
> @@ -147,9 +148,10 @@ static apr_status_t copy_brigade_range(a
> * of shorter length. So read and delete until we reached
> * the correct bucket for splitting.
> */
> + i = 0;
> while (start64 - off_first > (apr_uint64_t)copy->length) {
> apr_bucket *tmp;
> - int i = 0;
> + /* don't allow inf. spin */
> if (i++ >= 99999)
> return APR_EINVAL;
>
IMNSHO such changes need to be voted upon before commiting to
branches/2.2.x. When can this case happen? And why do it for the start
bucket but not for the end bucket?
Re: svn commit: r1162881 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Monday 29 August 2011, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> I am fine with this on 2.2.x. +1.
Me too, +1.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@apache.org]
> > Sent: Montag, 29. August 2011 18:22
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1162881 -
> > /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
> >
> > Do we need to vote on this:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1162885&view=rev
Re: svn commit: r1162881 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by Greg Ames <am...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:40 PM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <
ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com> wrote:
> I am fine with this on 2.2.x. +1.
>
+1 here too
RE: svn commit: r1162881 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
I am fine with this on 2.2.x. +1.
Regards
Rüdiger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@apache.org]
> Sent: Montag, 29. August 2011 18:22
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1162881 -
> /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
>
> Do we need to vote on this:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1162885&view=rev
>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r1162881 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
Do we need to vote on this:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1162885&view=rev
Re: svn commit: r1162881 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
The code was removed ala trunk… it was dead code anyway and
never did anything since i was constantly being (re)set to 0
anyway.
RE: svn commit: r1162881 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Fritsch [mailto:sf@sfritsch.de]
> Sent: Montag, 29. August 2011 18:00
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1162881 -
> /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, jim@apache.org wrote:
>
> > Author: jim
> > Date: Mon Aug 29 15:53:52 2011
> > New Revision: 1162881
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1162881&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Allow for actual counting...
> >
> > Modified:
> > httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
> >
> > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
> > URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/module
> s/http/byterange_filter.c?rev=1162881&r1=1162880&r2=1162881&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================
> ================
> > ---
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c (original)
> > +++
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/http/byterange_filter.c
> Mon Aug 29 15:53:52 2011
> > @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ static apr_status_t copy_brigade_range(a
> > if (off_first != start64) {
> > rv = apr_bucket_split(copy,
> (apr_size_t)(start64 - off_first));
> > if (rv == APR_ENOTIMPL) {
> > + int i;
> > rv = apr_bucket_read(copy, &s, &len,
> APR_BLOCK_READ);
> > if (rv != APR_SUCCESS) {
> > apr_brigade_cleanup(bbout);
> > @@ -147,9 +148,10 @@ static apr_status_t copy_brigade_range(a
> > * of shorter length. So read and
> delete until we reached
> > * the correct bucket for splitting.
> > */
> > + i = 0;
> > while (start64 - off_first >
> (apr_uint64_t)copy->length) {
> > apr_bucket *tmp;
> > - int i = 0;
> > + /* don't allow inf. spin */
> > if (i++ >= 99999)
> > return APR_EINVAL;
> >
>
> IMNSHO such changes need to be voted upon before commiting to
> branches/2.2.x. When can this case happen? And why do it for
> the start
> bucket but not for the end bucket?
Agreed. Please let us bring this in shape in trunk and backport a voted solution later on
to 2.2.x.
Regards
Rüdiger
>