Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id SAA21410; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:19:31 -0800 Received: from neog.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA21405; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:19:29 -0800 Received: (from nschrenk@localhost) by neog.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id UAA12008; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 20:24:48 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 20:24:47 -0600 (CST) From: Nathan Schrenk To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: The Apache timeout code is still braindead? - OOPS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Oops... it looks like I cut the wrong loop out of send_fd()... What I really meant was: This loop -- while(n && !r->connection->aborted) { w=fwrite(&buf[o],sizeof(char),n,c->client); n-=w; o+=w; } -- Could perhaps be changed to this loop: -- while(n && !r->connection->aborted) { w=fwrite(&buf[o],sizeof(char),n,c->client); n-=w; o+=w; if (n) { alarm(0); signal(SIGALRM,(void (*)())timeout); } } -- So now what's wrong with it? (Other than the fact that it adds the overhead of a comparison and two function calls in this loop). Will this fix the timeout problem? What problems does it introduce? Like I mentioned in my last post, I haven't looked into this very deeply. Nathan -- Nathan Schrenk nschrenk@neog.com Neoglyphics Media Corp. http://www.neog.com/