Reland my close on idle socket change.

Reland my close on idle socket change.

This reverts 44402 which reverted r44150 (fix for r43882) and r43882 (original change).  These changes were suspected for causing the infinite loop on the IO thread and also a crash.  It turned out that the backup socket was the cause.  These should be able to be safely relanded.  There's one minor change from the original, due to merging in the weeks of changes in between.
BUG=32817
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=47583

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2010-05-16 05:52:25]

http://codereview.chromium.org/2077004/diff/1/2
File net/socket/client_socket_pool_base.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/2077004/diff/1/2#newcode516
net/socket/client_socket_pool_base.cc:516: if (idle_socket_count() > 0) {
This is the new change that is different from the original changelist.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2010-05-18 00:48:06]

ping

On 2010/05/16 05:52:25, willchan wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/2077004/diff/1/2
> File net/socket/client_socket_pool_base.cc (right):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/2077004/diff/1/2#newcode516
> net/socket/client_socket_pool_base.cc:516: if (idle_socket_count() > 0) {
> This is the new change that is different from the original changelist.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2010-05-18 00:49:40]

Er, not because I'm in any hurry.  You just usually respond super quickly, so
I'm assuming you probably just missed this.  If you're busy, this is low
priority (I don't want to commit it in this dev channel week's release), so no
hurry.

On 2010/05/18 00:48:06, willchan wrote:
> ping
> 
> On 2010/05/16 05:52:25, willchan wrote:
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/2077004/diff/1/2
> > File net/socket/client_socket_pool_base.cc (right):
> > 
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/2077004/diff/1/2#newcode516
> > net/socket/client_socket_pool_base.cc:516: if (idle_socket_count() > 0) {
> > This is the new change that is different from the original changelist.

[eroman, 2010-05-18 00:50:54]

rubber stamp LGTM

[eroman, 2010-05-18 00:51:56]

> Er, not because I'm in any hurry.  You just usually respond super quickly, so
> I'm assuming you probably just missed this.  If you're busy, this is low
> priority (I don't want to commit it in this dev channel week's release), so no
> hurry.

Yes I had missed this; thanks for the ping.