On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Daniel Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > But don't you also agree that PR_INTERVAL_NO_WAIT is more suitable than -1 > for the PR_Recv timeout parameter?
Summarizing my RHBZ comment [1], the timeout value seems completely unused in the main send and receive functions if the non-blocking property is properly set (which I think it is now). Still, PR_INTERVAL_NO_WAIT is a more appropriate value to show the code's intent. Using PR_INTERVAL_NO_WAIT will also help prevent regression around setting of NSS's non-blocking property. It will cause NSS to return an error immediately if the actual socket is non-blocking, polling it returns EWOULDBLOCK, and the NSS non-blocking property is false. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960765#c2 -- David Strauss | [email protected] | +1 512 577 5827 [mobile] ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
