On Thu, 10.10.13 08:14, Tero Roponen (tero.ropo...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Testing for y > x is the same as testing for x < y.
Thanks!
Applied!
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Olivier Brunel wrote:
> No, I believe that was the point of the patch. The two tests were the
> same, first testing (x < y), and then (y > x). Now it then properly
> tests for (x > y)
>
Totally didn't read the context of the code, just the changes and the patch
On 10/10/13 12:38, Carlos Silva wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Tero Roponen
> wrote:
>
>> Testing for y > x is the same as testing for x < y.
>>
>
>
>> -if (y > x)
>> +if (x > y)
>>
>
>
> I thing you forgot to change the signs ;)
No, I believe that was the point o
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Tero Roponen
wrote:
> Testing for y > x is the same as testing for x < y.
>
> -if (y > x)
> +if (x > y)
>
I thing you forgot to change the signs ;)
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.
Testing for y > x is the same as testing for x < y.
diff --git a/src/libsystemd-bus/sd-event.c b/src/libsystemd-bus/sd-event.c
index 069e4fb..de96fde 100644
--- a/src/libsystemd-bus/sd-event.c
+++ b/src/libsystemd-bus/sd-event.c
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int pending_prioq_compare(const void *a, c
