On Thu 2020-07-09 13:23:07, John Ogness wrote: > On 2020-07-09, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I though more about it. IMHO, it will be better to modify > > prb_first_seq() to do the same cycle as prb_next_seq() > > and return seq number of the first valid entry. > > Exactly! > > Here is a patch that does just that. I added a prb_first_valid_seq() > function and made prb_first_seq() static. (The ringbuffer still needs > prb_first_seq() for itself.) The fix looks fine to me: Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> It means that we have two fixes on top of the original patchset. Could you please send v5 with the two fixes integrated? I would just squash them into the 4th patch. Best Regards, Petr PS: I know that I am hurrying maybe too much at the moment. Well, I will have vacation last two week in July. I think that this is in good enough state for linux-next and I would like to have it there at least few days before I leave. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
