> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com] > Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows > bug#52476) > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with > > r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently. > > I wonder if that call is stray and it doesn't get along with the > > timeout handling on Windows because of the SO_RCVTIMEO/SO_SENDTIMEO > > use on Windows, in lieu of non-blocking socket + poll like on Unix. > > > > At the time it was added, the new code was > > > > apr_socket_timeout_set(client_socket, 0) > > apr_socket_opt_set(client_socket, APR_SO_NONBLOCK, 1) > > > > (redundant unless there was some APR glitch at the time) > > Hmmmm, is this right? > > For event, the listening socket, and hence the accepted socket, is > always set to non-blocking in the MPM. > > For non-event on Unix, the listening socket, and hence the accepted > socket, is set to non-blocking IFF there are multiple listeners. > > So that line is not redundant in the non-event, single listener > configuration on Unix... no?
Don't we switch to non-blocking in apr_socket_timeout_set if we set the timeout to 0? And if we do a read with a timeout don't we do a poll with a timeout where it does not matter whether the socket is blocking or non blocking? Or did I get confused now completely? Regards Rüdiger