Re: Joining squid-dev List

Has anything been applied to 3 yet? I'd like to apply this patch, but don't want conflicting / slightly different configuration or implementation.

Cheers,

On 22/05/2010, at 1:53 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Bug w/ patch for 2.HEAD at:
> http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2931
>
>
> On 18/05/2010, at 4:33 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>
>> tis 2010-05-18 klockan 15:12 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>>
>>> /*
>>> * The 'need_validation' flag is used to prevent forwarding
>>> * loops between siblings. If our copy of the object is stale,
>>> * then we should probably only use parents for the validation
>>> * request. Otherwise two siblings could generate a loop if
>>> * both have a stale version of the object.
>>> */
>>> r->flags.need_validation = 1;
>>>
>>> Is the code in Squid3 roughly the same?
>>
>> Should be.
>>
>>> I'm tempted to get rid of the need_validation flag, as there are other
>>> ways that Squid does loop suppression (e.g., only-if-cached on peer
>>> requests, icp_stale_hit). What do people think of this? Is this howyou
>>> addressed it.
>>
>> Don't get rid of the flag, but an option to not skip siblings based on
>> it unless the sibling is configured with allow-miss
>> (peer->options.allow_miss) is fine.
>>
>> When using ICP or Digests forwarding loop conditions is quite common,
>> triggered by clients sending their own freshness requirements or slight
>> difference in configuration between the siblings.
>>
>> Regards
>> Henrik
>>
>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com