From 7673e2e12f30b893f812811d5868150c77ff326e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sipke Schoorstra Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 18:10:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Non-functional change but more explicit. Perhaps a bit subjective, but passing in a null value or a zero value controls whether the AcquireLockInternal will block or not, so probably better to provide an explicit Zero value from TryAcquireLock instead. --- src/Orchard/Tasks/Locking/Services/DistributedLockService.cs | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/Orchard/Tasks/Locking/Services/DistributedLockService.cs b/src/Orchard/Tasks/Locking/Services/DistributedLockService.cs index 1aa581123..2d0392b76 100644 --- a/src/Orchard/Tasks/Locking/Services/DistributedLockService.cs +++ b/src/Orchard/Tasks/Locking/Services/DistributedLockService.cs @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ namespace Orchard.Tasks.Locking.Services { } private bool TryAcquireLock(string name, TimeSpan maxValidFor, TimeSpan? timeout, string machineName, int? threadId, out DistributedLock @lock) { - @lock = AcquireLockInternal(name, maxValidFor, machineName, threadId, timeout.GetValueOrDefault()); + @lock = AcquireLockInternal(name, maxValidFor, machineName, threadId, timeout ?? TimeSpan.Zero); if (@lock != null) return true;