On Fri 2020-11-06 08:41:31, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 14:13:17 +0100 > Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > JFYI, the code reading and writing the cache looks good to me. > > > > It is still possible that some entries might stay unused (filled > > with zeroes) but it should be hard to hit in practice. It > > is good enough from my POV. > > You mean the part that was commented? Yeah, it is the comment problem when nr_records is pushed forward. > > > > I do not give Reviewed-by tag just because I somehow do not have power > > to review the entire patch carefully enough at the moment. > > No problem. Thanks for looking at it. > > I'm adding a link to this thread, so if someone wants proof you helped out > on this code, you can have them follow the links ;-) > > Anyway, even if I push this to linux-next where I stop rebasing code > (because of test coverage), I do rebase for adding tags. So if you ever get > around at looking at this code, I can add that tag later (before the next > merge window), or if you find something, I could fix it with a new patch and > give you a Reported-by. Good to know. Best Regards, Petr
