On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 18:11, Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 03:45:05PM +0200, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 14:18, Ivan Zhakov <i...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I don't know what was the idea of having separate timeout value and > > > non-blocking flag, but the proposed patch doesn't seem correct. > > > > > > Easy solution is to use apr_socket_timeout() in the test: > > > [[[ > > > Index: test/testsock.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- test/testsock.c (revision 1920036) > > > +++ test/testsock.c (working copy) > > > @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ > > > APR_ASSERT_SUCCESS(tc, "create client socket", rv); > > > > > > APR_ASSERT_SUCCESS(tc, "enable non-block mode", > > > - apr_socket_opt_set(cd, APR_SO_NONBLOCK, 1)); > > > + apr_socket_timeout_set(cd, 0)); > > > > > > /* It is valid for a connect() on a socket with NONBLOCK set to > > > * succeed (if the connection can be established synchronously), > > Following up here too for completeness - I agree this is right, I > committed that in r1920070 with some wording changes too. > > Thanks Ivan & thanks Ruediger for following up on this issue. > > Regards, Joe > > Hi Joe,
Do you plan to backport r1920070 to the APR 1.7.x branch? -- Ivan Zhakov
