herbert@greathan.apana.org.au (Herbert Xu) writes:
> Nick Holloway wrote:
> >
> > I've had a scan for a place where this could happen, but there is nothing
> > obvious. It always seems that when scfg->fd is closed, it is set to -1.
> >
> > One factor that may be important is that one of the configured servers
> > was being reluctant ("5xx Bog Off", or similar).
>
> I can't see anything wrong in 1.0.1 either. What version are you
> using anyway? And how often can you reproduce this?
This is 1.0.1, running on a Linux box (kernel 2.0.27, Debian 1.2.4).
I haven't been able to reproduce it at will, but I haven't tried yet.
I was hoping that my 'scfg->fd contains a previously closed fd' analysis
accompanied by a code inspection would cause the answer to leap out of
the source. Unfortunately, this hasn't proved to be the case.
The only area I'm not sure about is if the scfg->fh and scfg->fd manage to
get out of sync. This happens briefly in attachServer, as fd is assigned,
and then the old fh is closed after, and the reopened. However, I can't
think of a sequence of events that this would cause an error for.
--
`O O' | Nick.Holloway@alfie.demon.co.uk http://www.alfie.demon.co.uk/
// ^ \\ | Nick.Holloway@parallax.co.uk http://www.parallax.co.uk/~alfie/
