Yes, it looks great and I'm going to commit it -- I've been super busy the last couple of weeks.
kr On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Zhu Han <[email protected]> wrote: > Can anybody take a look at this small patch? > > best regards, > hanzhu > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM, schumi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I traced a minor bug. If I set a large time out value, e.g. 3000s, in >> "reserved-with-timeout" command, the queue will return back to the >> client immediately with "TIMED_OUT", just the same effect as >> "reserved-with-timeout 0". >> >> I took some time to trace it. Seems like there is an overflow during >> type conversion. Here is a simple patch which can fix it >> (pending_timeout is 'int', where overflow occurs after it multiplies >> against SECOND): >> >> diff --git a/conn.c b/conn.c >> index 32f5f16..0d622af 100644 >> --- a/conn.c >> +++ b/conn.c >> @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ conn_set_evq(conn c, const int events, evh >> handler) >> should_timeout = 1; >> } >> if (c->pending_timeout >= 0) { >> - t = min(t, c->pending_timeout * SECOND); >> + t = min(t, ((usec)c->pending_timeout) * SECOND); >> should_timeout = 1; >> } >> if (should_timeout) timeval_from_usec(&tv, t); > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "beanstalk-talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/beanstalk-talk?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beanstalk-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beanstalk-talk?hl=en.
