Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf
I think I put the extra wait time in the wrong place...
|
I'm also entirely unfamiliar with this code, but it looks like a reasonable change to me, given the request. The man page for
tsleep(9) says the final argument, when divided by
hz, gives the max number of seconds it will sleep. So it originally slept (up to) 1 second, which ties in with the comment in the code, and then 10 seconds with your change.