Alexander A. Klimov wrote:
> -"@(#) $URL: http://dotat.at/prog/unifdef $\n"
> +"@(#) $URL: https://dotat.at/prog/unifdef $\n"
Yes, thank you! Feel free to add my:
Acked-by: Tony Finch
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttps://dotat.at/
Selsey Bill to Lyme Regis
Harshit Jain wrote:
> Hey! tony thanks for reviewing, pardon me i wasn't able to get your context
> can you please elaborate a little what you are trying to say?
There's a big block comment above the state machine code which tries to
explain what the blazes is going on. The comment includes an e
Harshit Jain wrote:
> /* modify this line */
> -static void Mpass (void) { strncpy(keyword, "if ", 4); Pelif(); }
> +static void Mpass (void) { memcpy(keyword, "if ", 4); Pelif(); }
Yes, this is a good improvement, but you also need to update the comment
to match the code.
Tony.
--
f.anthon
Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>
> have you tried gnulib for improving portability ?
My strategy is to try to avoid using anything outside the standard C89 library.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first.
Rough, becom
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> In newer glibc's (versions > 2.06) reasonably secure permissions of
> 0600 are used when creating a temporary file with mkstemp(). But for
> older glibc's (versions <= 2.06) 0666 is used which is not secure.
Thanks for your suggestion! I'm afraid I prefer not to make the cha
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Tony, are people using the TCP_NOPUSH define as a way to detect
>the presence of T/TCP support?
No, MSG_EOF is the right way to do that.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAIR ISLE: WESTERLY VEERING NORTHERLY 4 OR 5. WINTRY SH
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How close is TCP_NOPUSH to behaving identically to TCP_CORK now?
>> If it does behave identically, it might be time to standardize
>> the symbolic name for this option, to make apps more portable
>> between the two OS's. (It'd be nice to also standardize the
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>How close is TCP_NOPUSH to behaving identically to TCP_CORK now?
They are exactly the same.
>If it does behave identically, it might be time to standardize
>the symbolic name for this option, to make apps more portable
>between the two OS's. (It'd be nice
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Linux 2.4 has the "dataready" filter in form of the (currently undocumented)
>TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT option.
>
>Another option would be to use one of the in kernel http accelerators, e.g.
>khttpd or tux.
One thing that made it easy for me to add FreeBSD's accept
9 matches
Mail list logo
