On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 12:54:20AM +0100, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 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.
"cvs annotate" is a wonderful thing :-) You can find out what revision a
line was added, then look at the log comment for that revision.
ViewCVS (and sometimes cvsweb) can do the annotation, too.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
