On (20/07/09 14:25), Petr Mladek wrote: > 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: Yeah, looks right to me as well. > 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. I'd prefer v5, if possible. -ss _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
