Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>this patch:
>>- removes if (!short_report) { } condition since the code inside this
>> condition is already in the block of the same condition.
>> + fixed alignment after removing the loop
>>- moves a chunk of code to the condition's:
>>
>> if (ws_record.access_count != 0 ||
>> ( ws_record.status != SERVER_READY
>> && ws_record.status != SERVER_DEAD)) {
>>
>>block, since it was just wasting CPU cycles. Especially if a server has
>>high server|thread_limit but has just a few threads/procs running.
>>
>
> maybe since the body of the loop is so darn big it would be clearer if
> the check was:
>
> + if (ws_record.access_count == 0 &&
> + ( ws_record.status == SERVER_READY
> + || ws_record.status == SERVER_DEAD)) {
> + continue;
> + }
yes! I hate multiply nested loops with huge bodies. Go for it Jeff.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
