Am Montag, 5. August 2013, 22:50:05 schrieb Stefan Fritsch: > > Agreed, but from what I can see the proposed patch does > > add some benefit, allows for future improvement, adds no > > overhead and no bugs. As such, even though it doesn't completely > > solve the whole issue, it is valuable enough to be folded into > > 2.4. (imo 'natch) > > It gives us a new API that we need to keep. But if you and Graham > both think that this is a good tradeoff, then that's fine with me. > But I want to test one more thing before I vote +1. Hopefully I > will have some time for that next week-end.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to trigger the new code path in mod_ssl being actually used. Do you have any example setup/situation, where the SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ case is actually hit?
