Mladen Turk wrote:
The fixed patch uses the returning value from apr_thread_cond_timedwait().
Also changed to apr_reslist_timeout_set.
+1...
feel free to nag me off-list tomorrow if nobody has committed it by then and
there are no further objections to resolve
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Mladen Turk wrote:
> That was the bug.
>
> > if not returning whatever apr_thread_cond_timedwait()
> > returned, why not return APR_TIMEUP instead of APR_EAGAIN?
> > but like Cliff said I wonder why the retval of
> > apr_thread_cond_timewait() isn't appropriate?
>
> The fixed p
> From: Jeff Trawick
>
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >
> > Is it really correct to return APR_EAGAIN regardless of the return
> > value of apr_thread_cond_timedwait()? Or is that a bug caused by a
> > lack of {}'s? This is why we tend to say that you should
> always use
> > {}'s, even if the
