ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

I've noticed in a few places where what is shared and what
is not (ie: local to the worker struct within the child
process) are confused.

In my mind, ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share() should
worry about things that are (possibly) shared,
and thus worker->s entries. It should also be
checking worker->s->status as well.

Now ap_proxy_initialize_worker() contain worker specific
items, and are therefore local to that child process.
As such, checking to see if that worker has been
initialized by checking worker->s->status ain't
quite right, since it means that the *shared* data
has been initialized, but that this worker may not
have been (if you catch my drift). Furthermore,
this means that the ->cp stuff isn't being
fully init'ed...