On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 08:31:21PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> That looks correct to me, but you should do connect_queue as well.
Oh, right.
> You
> should be guaranteed that the queues are empty (length 0) by the time you
> get there (because anyone on the queue would hold a ref to the sock). But
> it wouldn't hurt to have an assert in connq_destroy.
Wouldn't it be more logical to have that assertion in sock_free?
> (cq->queue might
> still need to be freed, because the ways things are written it is the
> result of malloc(0) and it always might change whether that returns null or
> allocates a tiny amount, best not to presume malloc(0)==0.)
Yes.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
