shyam_i...@dell.com wrote:
> Mike Christie wrote:
>> Mike Christie wrote:
>>> We should not have to call stop_event_loop if the event_loop is
>>> already stopped. What I am wondering is how the event loop is stopped
>
>>> by anyone other than the call to stop_event_loop? It looks like it
>>> co
Mike Christie wrote:
> Mike Christie wrote:
>> We should not have to call stop_event_loop if the event_loop is
>> already stopped. What I am wondering is how the event loop is stopped
>> by anyone other than the call to stop_event_loop? It looks like it
>> could happen if there was a signal or
Mike Christie wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> shyam_i...@dell.com wrote:
>> Resending because earlier patch had a small typo.
>>
>>
>>> Ulrich wrote:
>>> On 17 Mar 2009 at 22:33, shyam_i...@dell.com wrote:
The issue is caused because child is trying to free up the session
>> and
c
Thanks for the patch.
shyam_i...@dell.com wrote:
> Resending because earlier patch had a small typo.
>
>
>> Ulrich wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2009 at 22:33, shyam_i...@dell.com wrote:
>
>>> The issue is caused because child is trying to free up the session
> and
>>> connections that the parent had
Resending because earlier patch had a small typo.
>Ulrich wrote:
>On 17 Mar 2009 at 22:33, shyam_i...@dell.com wrote:
>> The issue is caused because child is trying to free up the session
and
>> connections that the parent had setup.
>Hi!
>Not knowing the source, I wonder: Parent and child
