On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
Sent: Montag, 29. August 2011 17:32
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 2.2 approach for byterange?
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]>
wrote:
looks good overall.
+ while (start64 - off_first >
(apr_uint64_t)copy->length) {
+ apr_bucket *tmp;
+ int i = 0;
+ if (i++ >= 99999)
+ return APR_EINVAL;
I assume you meant to initialize i before the while() loop.
Greg
I guess yes. The question is if we should keep that in the backport at
all, as we only do it in the first location
and not in the second location and 99999 looks like a rather high
number without any comment and documention.
IMHO even arbitrary numbers deserve that.
Looks like an accidental commit or merge error in r1162131. I think we
should remove that block both from trunk and from the backport.
