You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2014/01/02 15:26:03 UTC

Re: Event and atomics, round II

Yes, it is complete.

On Dec 31, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Falco Schwarz <hi...@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 <ji...@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?
>