Hi Joseph, On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:50:17AM -0700, Joseph Lynch wrote: > Hello Willy, > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I moved the order of the comparisons around a little bit to ensure > >> that the redispatch_after variable would be defined (namely if > >> PR_O_REDISP is set then redispatch_after must have been set to -1). > > > > I think that we'll be able to get rid of the option after that, as > > a cleanup resulting from your work. > > I believe in this iteration of the patch I have initialized the > redispatch_after variable so that this cleanup is easier in the > future.
Perfect, I've applied it, thank you. > It should just be an inversion of the check but against > redispatch_after. If you like I can follow up this patch with that > cleanup. As you like! Thanks! Willy
