Varun Naik <vcnaik94@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Either is fine as the implementation of the same semantics; I >> however am not sure if two I-T-A entries should compare "same" or >> "not same", or if we are better off catching the caller that feeds >> two I-T-A entries to same() with a BUG(). > > I'd argue that two ita cache entries should be a BUG. Since we believe > that a cache entry in the tree can never have the intent-to-add bit set, > it suffices to show that no call to same() ever passes two cache entries > from the index. > ... > The same argument probably extends to the conflicted bit, but changing > that is probably out of scope of this patch. Yup. I think the patch as-posted is fine. I also agree that tightening the validity check of parameters to same() is better done as a separate topic.
