On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:09 PM, <furuyao@pm.nttdata.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review!
>>>
>>> + if (secs <= 0)
>>> + secs = 1; /* Always sleep at least 1 sec */
>>> +
>>> + sleeptime = secs * 1000 + usecs / 1000;
>>>
>>> The above is the code which caused that problem. 'usecs' should have been
>>> reset to zero when 'secs' are rounded up to 1 second. But not. Attached
>>> is the updated version of the patch.
>> Thank you for the refactoring v2 patch.
>> I did a review of the patch.
>>
>> 1. applied cleanly and compilation was without warnings and errors
>> 2. all regress tests was passed ok
>> 3. sleeptime is ok when the --status-intarvall is set to 1
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch!
>
> I think that this refactoring patch is useful for improving source code
> readability and making the future patches simpler, whether we adopt
> your patch or not. So, barring any objections, I'm thinking to commit
> this refactoring patch.
Committed!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
