2008/1/4, Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Yang Tse wrote:
>
> > My hack at fixing this would be the attached patch. But I'm feeling that
> > there might be better options to fix this.
>
> Thinking about it further, I think we can just always return 0 even if the
> KEEPALIVE fails for whatever reason, since I think that's not a reason enough
> to abort the entire operation.

Ok. Just committed
http://cool.haxx.se/cvs.cgi/curl/src/main.c.diff?r1=1.441&r2=1.442

Operation won't abort when trying to set SO_KEEPALIVE fails, it will
just issue a warning and ignore the failure.

-- 
-=[Yang]=-