On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Oskari Saarenmaa <os@ohmu.fi> wrote:
> 31.01.2014 10:59, Sawada Masahiko kirjoitti:
>
> I think the idea in the new progress_report() call (with force == true) is
> to make sure that there is at least one progress_report call that actually
> writes the progress report. Otherwise the final report may go missing if it
> gets suppressed by the time-based check. The force argument as used in the
> new call skips that check.
>
I understood.
I have two concerns as follows.
- I think that there is possible that progress_report() is called
frequently ( less than 1 second). That is, progress_report() is called with force == true after
progress_report was called with force == false and execute this
function.
- progress_report() is called even if -P option is disabled. I'm
concerned about that is cause of performance degradation.
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
