On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:59:44PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 08:57:11AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > + ret = (iter->len > 0) ? 1 : 0; > > + if (iter->processed < 0) > > + ret = iter->processed; > > + else if (!advanced && !stale) > > ret = 0; > > Maybe reshuffle this a bit as: > > if (iter->processed < 0) > ret = iter->processed; > else if (iter->len == 0 || (!advanced && !stale)) > ret = 0; > else > ret = 1; > > Otherwise this looks great! > Ack, I like that better. Thanks for the feedback. Brian
