> -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Fritsch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Montag, 29. August 2011 17:43 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: 2.2 approach for byterange? > > 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. >
+1 Regards Rüdiger
