In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Martin Kraemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 08:05:03AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> >
>> > So maybe it avoids a segfault, but now we have a configured listening
>> > socket we won't wake up for. Which is worse? Perhaps segfault is
>> > better? (actually, I'd rather us report the error and terminate)
>>
>> Flame bait: assert(fd >= 0); ...
>
> or bail out in make_sock() like other errors (if it is an error, of
> course; I still don't understand)
>
>> Hmmm... Perhaps we should ask the authors of mod_ssl and KAME.
>
> You committed it, Martin; I'm asking you what problem it solves :)
>
> (I saw a similar change with no comments in the mod_ssl patch; I
> didn't see it in the KAME patch I have (for Apache 1.3.6).)
>
> I'll ask Ralf.
As I said to Jeff in a private mail, I'm confused myself why I had this
in my CVS tree. I cannot remember why it was there and from where it
came. It is now kicked out, of course.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
