httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Fritsch ...@sfritsch.de>
Subject RE: 2.2 approach for byterange?
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:42:54 GMT
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.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/mixed (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message