On 1/1/23 14:48, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hello Florian, Ingo, On 1/1/23 08:24, Florian Obser wrote:On 2022-12-31 23:54 +01, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote:
[...]
With your change, the timeout could go up to 600.999999, i.e. almost 601 seconds. I don't know the protocol and can't say whether the change would matter, but naively, exceeding the MAX_ feels surprising to me.
Oops, I missed this part. That's where it makes sense. :)
Really, this doesn't look like a bug to me...Unfortunately the OP did not explain why they think this is a bug.Sorry; my bad; I should have explained it.The thing that led me to believe that it was a bug is that variables or constants called *max* (normally) refer to the maximum value allowed in a range, for which there usually is a *min* counterpart (when it's not simply 0).In this case, it seems MAX_* is really the maximum+1. I don't know what the code is about, so 200 and 600 just look like magic numbers to me, and I don't know if the maximum is 600 or actually 599.Yours, IngoCheers, Alex
-- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
