On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 02:50:45PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > + if (!ret) > > > > + timeout = 1; > > > > + else > > > > + timeout = 0; > > > > > > > > > nit: the following might be cleaner > > > > > > ret = !!timeout; > > > > > > > Other way around, perhaps, > > > > timeout = !ret; > > I saw that but didn't want to modify this patch. But yes, this is easy > enough and looks a lot better. Thanks, I don't think this needs to block progress.
