Bug#283800: marked as done (apache-mpm-worker - fails with "Invalid argument: apr_proc_mutex_unlock failed")
Your message dated Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:07:24 +0100
with message-id <1102795645.5105.4.camel@catsby.fooishbar.org>
and subject line welcome to the land of duplicates
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Dec 2004 12:50:43 +0000
>From waldi@debian.org Wed Dec 01 04:50:43 2004
Return-path: <waldi@debian.org>
Received: from wavehammer.waldi.eu.org [82.139.196.55] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CZTwR-0007gD-00; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:50:43 -0800
Received: by wavehammer.waldi.eu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 986593C02A; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:50:37 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:50:37 +0100
From: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: apache-mpm-worker
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20041201125037.GA10411@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: apache2-mpm-worker
Version: 2.0.52-3
Severity: grave
apache fails with "Invalid argument: apr_proc_mutex_unlock failed" while
doing a gracefull restart. This seems to be the same problem than
described in #231147.
Adding "AcceptMutex fcntl" into the worker module section fixes the
problem.
Bastian
--=20
It is a human characteristic to love little animals, especially if
they're attractive in some way.
-- McCoy, "The Trouble with Tribbles", stardate 4525.6
--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkGtvh0ACgkQnw66O/MvCNE8kgCfXRvSg/d35rIVj3BJ2p2Z83sP
9X8An3e4oRvUyteMqrimCp8el25XdNVa
=MBEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 283800-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Dec 2004 20:07:07 +0000
>From daniel@fooishbar.org Sat Dec 11 12:07:07 2004
Return-path: <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Received: from (localhost.localdomain) [213.151.107.243]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CdDWF-0000va-00; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:07:07 -0800
Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 2BF143FE56; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:07:27 +0100 (CET)
Subject: welcome to the land of duplicates
From: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
To: 283800-done@bugs.debian.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:07:24 +0100
Message-Id: <1102795645.5105.4.camel@catsby.fooishbar.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.1.1
Delivered-To: 283800-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
severity inflation: check
duplicate of existing bug (which should probably be reopened): check
user configuration issue: check
cheers,
daniel
Reply to: