On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Simon Perreault <simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca> wrote: > On 2010-09-20 13:53, Nick Mathewson wrote: >>> Would the attached patch work? >> >> Looks okay to me. Probably, you'd want to rename "ecb" to "errorcb" >> or something; we don't use "ecb" to mean "error callback" anywhere >> else. > > Sure, no problem. Also, I noticed a small typo: > > -void evconnlistner_set_error_cb(struct evconnlistener *lev, > +void evconnlistener_set_error_cb(struct evconnlistener *lev,
Thanks. Should I expect a revised patch, or should I try to remember to fix this up myself. >> Is there any way to write a unit test for this? I don't see a good >> one beyond passing in a bogus fd to provoke an ENOTSOCK or something >> like that, which is not the exact situation we're facing here, but >> which at least would make sure the callback is getting run properly. > > Having no idea what your test harness is capable of, couldn't one set > ulimit -n some_low_value, start a listener, create connections until the > error callback is called, and then ...? Ick; that approach *would* work, but it's mostly launched from C, so instead of doing a ulimit -n, you're looking at a setrlimit, which implies that we need to do the necessary autoconf stuff to see if we _have_ getrlimit, etc. I guess if we've gotta, we've gotta. :p -- Nick *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@freehaven.net with unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.
