On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 09:49:30AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Provided if code simplification is a good enough rationale, the > > patch looks sensible, but I find its use of u64 a bit questionable > > (though not wrong). I would have expected that the type of "rand" > > would be the same as backoff_ms and wait_ms, two variables involved > > in the same expression. > > Ah, not so fast. The use of modulo means we need to be careful > about about the fuzzing factor going negative, and use of unsigned > type allows us to forget about it. > > (fuzz % 250), when fuzz is of a signed random integral type, ranges > between -250 and +250 and because we want the center of our > distribution at 1000, so I think the following is equivalent. [...] > - wait_ms = (750 + rand % 500) * backoff_ms / 1000; > + wait_ms = (1000 + fuzz % 250) * backoff_ms / 1000; I was going to say that having rand be an unsigned type was the right behavior, but with this change it can (and should) be signed. Thanks for the simplification :-). Thanks, Taylor
