Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 52596 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jul 2001 22:39:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 52572 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2001 22:39:18 -0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 15:39:23 -0700 (PDT) From: dean gaudet To: Brian Pane cc: , Subject: Re: Extraneous socket read? In-Reply-To: <3B476F38.8070602@pacbell.net> Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > If I'm reading the code right, there's one problem with this approach: the > APR_INCOMPLETE_READ flag doesn't get set until after the first > read on a socket, so the first read on a new connection (the one that > usually > returns EAGAIN) doesn't get skipped like it should. I _think_ the solution > is to set APR_INCOMPLETE_READ on any newly created socket, unless > you can think of cases where that would break something else. oh right. plus there's one more thing to take into account: FreeBSD's SO_ACCEPTFILTER and linux's TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT ... both of which won't present a socket for accept until there's some data to be read. hmm. we don't have TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT support yet. -dean