On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:39, Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm puzzled by this function:
>
>
> int udev_queue_get_seqnum_is_finished(struct udev_queue *udev_queue, unsigned long long int seqnum)
> {
> char filename[UTIL_PATH_SIZE];
> struct stat statbuf;
>
> if (udev_queue == NULL)
> return -EINVAL;
> /* if we have not seen this seqnum, check if it is/was already queued */
> if (seqnum < udev_queue->last_seen_udev_seqnum) {
> udev_queue_get_udev_seqnum(udev_queue);
> if (seqnum < udev_queue->last_seen_udev_seqnum)
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> Shouldn't the test be (seqnum > udev_queue->last_seen_udev_seqnum) ?
> I.e. "greater than" instead of "less than".
Sounds like.
> If the code is right, then why does it need to re-check after calling
> udev_queue_get_udev_seqnum() ? The udev seqnum can only increase, so if
> the first test is true then the second cannot fail either.
The udev_queue->last_seen_udev_seqnum can change with the
udev_queue_get_udev_seqnum() call, hence the second check. It will
work when the < turns into a >, I guess. :)
Kay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
