On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 03:21:18PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > Now that I see the fix for the implicit conversion: > > L527: + nap = Max(0, (nextWakeup - now + 999) / > 1000); > .. > L545: + > (int) Min(INT_MAX, nap), > > > I think limiting the naptime at use is confusing. Don't we place these > adjacently? Then we could change the nap to an integer. Or we can > just assert out for the nap time longer than INT_MAX (but this would > require another int64 variable. I belive we won't need such a long > nap, (or that is no longer a nap?)
Yeah, I guess this deserves a comment. I could also combine it easily: nap = (int) Min(INT_MAX, Max(0, (nextWakeup - now + 999) / 1000)); We could probably just remove the WL_TIMEOUT flag and set timeout to -1 whenever "nap" is calculated to be > INT_MAX, but I didn't think it was worth complicating the code in order to save an extra wakeup every ~25 days. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com