apache-lists at riggs
Feb 9, 2012, 8:39 AM
Post #2 of 3
(152 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: svn commit: r1242351 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: docs/manual/mod/mod_proxy.xml modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c server/util_script.c
[In reply to]
|
|
On Feb 9, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> jim [at] apache wrote:
>> Author: jim
>> Date: Thu Feb 9 15:07:22 2012
>> New Revision: 1242351
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1242351&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Handle cases, esp when using mod_proxy_fcgi, when we do not
>> want SCRIPT_FILENAME to include the query string.
>>
>> Modified:
>> httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_proxy.xml
>> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
>> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h
>> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c
>> httpd/httpd/trunk/server/util_script.c
>>
>
>> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c?rev=1242351&r1=1242350&r2=1242351&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c Thu Feb 9 15:07:22 2012
>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static apr_status_t send_data(proxy_conn
>> while (to_write) {
>> apr_size_t n = 0;
>> rv = apr_socket_sendv(s, vec + offset, nvec - offset, &n);
>> - if (rv != APR_SUCCESS) {
>> + if ((rv != APR_SUCCESS) && !APR_STATUS_IS_EAGAIN(rv)) {
>> break;
>> }
>> if (n > 0) {
>>
>
> How is this related to the log message and the query string issue?
It appears this commit has to do with the message I sent the other day (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201202.mbox/%3C8EA4E5E4-F97E-410B-AAD4-257ECB4F972A [at] riggs%3E).
The question is, was that EAGAIN "fix" supposed to be included in this commit or not? Is that even the right "fix"? That was my brute-force attempt to address the issue I was having, but I don't know if it is correct. Do we need to check in the loop for a timeout or something in case we keep receiving EAGAIN? Or would the timeout get picked up and bail out elsewhere?
|
