On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 08:21:55PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > I wonder if the following patch is correct at all.
>
> That's the same patch that I submitted a while back.
Ah..  I must have missed it.

> I've not looked to see if it went into 0.51, or if the alternative -
> removing the CHECK_SESSION_ADDR option entirely - was taken instead.
> If you actually have a use for that feature, you may have to argue for
> its retention...
The version I checked yesterday (and which the patch is made against) is
taken from CVS.

I am not sure whether this feature is that critical for me (I do not
expect too many users), however I think it's good idea to have this code
in there just for the sake of being there: this seems to be natural [for
some people], so why not have it for them to not reinvent the weel.

--
Misha