On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 11:19 PM Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 13 Jul 2023, at 23:07, Kinglong Mee wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > ... > > Comparing with the above one, this seems work. > > This fixes it for me and keeps the optimization. Its quite a subtle bit of > logic - maybe a comment is appropriate? Thanks for your testing. I will send a new patch with a comment. > > One non-intuitive thing here is > that array->size == 19 for a directory with 18 entries, since we count the > "eof" entry as a blank entry instead of the last real entry. No. This is not a blank entry, every entry is a real one. For the first emit, only returns 18 entries to the caller, the next emit will return the 19th one. thanks, Kinglong Mee
