From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37433)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>) id 1XiLKB-0005Kk-VV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:45:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>) id 1XiLK5-0006BR-PS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:45:27 -0400
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:10697)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>) id 1XiLK5-0006AZ-3D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:45:21 -0400
Message-ID: <544CD0AE.7040802@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:45:02 +0800
From: Gonglei <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1414312958-21967-1-git-send-email-rjones@redhat.com>
	<1414312958-21967-2-git-send-email-rjones@redhat.com>
	<544CB78A.3090403@huawei.com> <20141026102248.GS15695@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141026102248.GS15695@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 repost 2] block/curl: Improve type
 safety of s->timeout.
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>
Cc: "kwolf@redhat.com" <kwolf@redhat.com>, "lersek@redhat.com" <lersek@redhat.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "stefanha@redhat.com" <stefanha@redhat.com>

On 2014/10/26 18:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

> It's just there to stop unreasonable timeouts or negative numbers.
> 100000 s is 27 hours, and no webserver I know of would keep a
> connection open that long.  Possibly not even the IP stack.
> 

Yes, it is. But 26 hours is OK? I just think we should assure the timeout
as reasonable range, absolutely 100000 is too big IMO.

> What's the difference between defining a number at the top of the file
> to be used once, and placing it exactly where it is used?  Except the
> former introduces long range dependencies into the code making it
> harder to read and more fragile when changed.


That's the purpose using macro. If this value is used only one place  in the
curl.c (or other c files) now and future, you are fine with it. :)

Best regards,
-Gonglei