httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
Subject RE: 2.2 approach for byterange?
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:44:31 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Fritsch [mailto:sf@sfritsch.de] 
> Sent: Montag, 29. August 2011 17:43
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 2.2 approach for byterange?
> 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
> 
> > 	Sent: Montag, 29. August 2011 17:32
> > 	To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > 	Subject: Re: 2.2 approach for byterange?
> >
> >
> > 	On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Stefan Fritsch 
> <sf@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 	looks good overall.
> >
> > 	+                    while (start64 - off_first > 
> (apr_uint64_t)copy->length) {
> > 	+                        apr_bucket *tmp;
> > 	+                        int i = 0;
> > 	+                        if (i++ >= 99999)
> > 	+                            return APR_EINVAL;
> > 	I assume you meant to initialize i before the while() loop.
> >
> > 	Greg
> >
> >
> > 	I guess yes. The question is if we should keep that in 
> the backport at all, as we only do it in the first location
> > 	and not in the second location and 99999 looks like a 
> rather high number without any comment and documention.
> > 	IMHO even arbitrary numbers deserve that.
> >
> 
> 
> Looks like an accidental commit or merge error in r1162131. I 
> think we 
> should remove that block both from trunk and from the backport.
> 

+1

Regards

Rüdiger

Mime
View raw message