On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:15:31PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 11/16/2011 06:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > We should at least check that we actually have a cached value there - > > the cache is sparse after all. > That's what the cache already does today, you recently change the rbtree > implementation to return -ENOENT if there is no cached value. Oh, sorry - this is in the cache specific code isn't it? In that case yes the check is just totally redundant and can be removed on those grounds alone. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
