On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Rafael Zalamena <[email protected]> wrote:
> Em Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:42:40 +0100 > Federico Schwindt <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > Diff aside looking at the code my impression is that the > VTCP_filter_http() > > function is meant to be compiled in always so erroring out if it's not > > supported might be wrong here, or at least not when errno is EOPNOTSUPP/ > > multiple times. > > People without it must have a way to find it out. The old way was not > including any code and avoid it at all, but then we had a code that behaves > differently according to the system which seems better than not giving > any clues. > The older code will always include VTCP_filter_http() for Linux, it was not calling it though. > > > On 4 Sep 2015 1:35 pm, "Federico Schwindt" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Did you see my second diff? :) > > --- SNIPPED --- > > Yes, I read your second diff. > > I agree with you that it would be better to kill the accept_filter > param ifdef guards to keep it avaliable in every system, but I don't > think it's a good idea to break the old behavior because people might > be expecting it. That's why I suggested the TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT detection > to make the code more portable instead of just looking for __linux. > My second diff doesn't change any behaviour so nothing will break unless you enable it.
_______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
