> On Mar 14, 2016, at 7:07 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since apr_pollfd_t is not opaque (unlike apr_socket_t), maybe we could >> remove the indirection here (and in the code below) with somthing like >> (apr_pollfd_t *pfds, size_t npfds, ...). >> That would allow a single allocation (all pfds in once) and possibly >> make things easier for the caller. > > This definitely makes sense. > > I originally wondered whether we could pass an apr_array_header_t into it, > but it felt like overkill. Doing it your way means that we could use an array > if we wanted to, or we could just pass structures on the stack, which would > be much more flexible. >
+1 for stack approach. Also, +1 on the whole concept :)
