From 71d6760f48fe777a91ade85d23f18badf2c84abe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: antirez <antirez@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 12:01:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Make comment about nack->consumer test for minidle more
 obvious.

Related to #5437.
---
 src/t_stream.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/t_stream.c b/src/t_stream.c
index 39ee713e0..956a72022 100644
--- a/src/t_stream.c
+++ b/src/t_stream.c
@@ -2169,8 +2169,10 @@ void xclaimCommand(client *c) {
         if (nack != raxNotFound) {
             /* We need to check if the minimum idle time requested
              * by the caller is satisfied by this entry.
-             * Note that if nack->consumer is NULL, means the NACK
-             * is created by FORCE, we should ignore minidle. */
+             *
+             * Note that the nack could be created by FORCE, in this
+             * case there was no pre-existing entry and minidle should
+             * be ignored, but in that case nick->consumer is NULL. */
             if (nack->consumer && minidle) {
                 mstime_t this_idle = now - nack->delivery_time;
                 if (this_idle < minidle) continue;