On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since apr_pollfd_t is not opaque (unlike apr_socket_t), maybe we could > remove the indirection here (and in the code below) with somthing like > (apr_pollfd_t *pfds, size_t npfds, ...). > That would allow a single allocation (all pfds in once) and possibly > make things easier for the caller. This definitely makes sense. I originally wondered whether we could pass an apr_array_header_t into it, but it felt like overkill. Doing it your way means that we could use an array if we wanted to, or we could just pass structures on the stack, which would be much more flexible. Regards, Graham —
