On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:32:18AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > Because if Apache can't get it right, then I am assuming that nobody > else can either. I had originally coded it to use *nsds just as you > describe below, and it didn't pass any tests, because throughout the > code people were passing 0 as *nsds. I decided to fix an API problem > that I created years ago by using the same variable for both input and > output parameters in this patch. I am not tied to adding num, but I do > believe that it is the correct approach.
I vote to fix httpd rather than add an extra parameter. Perhaps we need to make it clearer that *nsds is the number of fd's on input. But, I know that I was under that impression by reading the docs. However, I can see where people were confused if they read the docs. > The small array on the stack is an optimization that I was discussing > with bpane last night. It would require some testing to find the right > number, and I wasn't ready to do that. I wanted to get the > implementation out there, and I figured we could continue to optimize it > once it was done. Cool. I'd bet any number >2 will work for our purposes in httpd as the common case seems to be 2. But, I do recall 6 being used somewhere and I can't fathom where I saw that. -- justin
