On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Steve Legg wrote:
> Am I wrong, and there is actually a way for reqPTY_state to be set back to
> idle? Or is this a real bug?
It looks like a real bug to me!
> (it looks to me like the code has been written with asynchrony in mind, but
> never actually finished - the reqPTY_state code appears to be mostly
> redundant).
Not entirely redundant since it avoids doing all that initing of the packet
during situations when the transport layer returns LIBSSH2_ERROR_EAGAIN.
How about fixing this bug with a patch like the attached?
-- / daniel.haxx.se
_______________________________________________
libssh2-devel http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libssh2-devel