Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > I agree, with one nit. Was there a reason for getting rid of the handle > protection in this patch? We are apparently stumbling over a problem with > handle corruption in the current CVS so removing a chance for protection > seems like we're going backwards.
The previous code was assuming that a handle would never change from inheritable to non-inheritable (or conversely) and was protecting it accordingly. That's not true anymore and I don't know how to protect in that situation. I have seen the DEBUGGING_AND_FDS_PROTECTED stuff, but I am not sure if/how it works. Pierre
