On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 06:46:19 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 09:31 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:22:36 +0100 > > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:05:35AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:56:04 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > [ REQUEST FOR ACKS ] > > > > Can any of the netfilter folks give me an Acked-by for this? > > > If Florian's concern were addressed, then: > > Yeah, the change he mentioned was done is 3/8. As that was written by > > Joe Perches, I did some work that he missed and put it before his > > patch, which showed a discrepancy between the two functions. After all > > patches are applied, it should be consistent to his liking. > > I think seq_has_overflowed does not need > to be used after every seq_<put/print> call. > > It interrupts reading code flow and just > isn't alll that necessary as every operation > before it will be redone anyway. > > It should be used before or after a large > blocks though. > It's not used in every occurrence. The problem that Florian had was that there were two almost identical functions, and you changed one to have the seq_has_overflowed() check, but the other one was left without it. It wasn't about checking multiple times, it was about consistency between two similar functions. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
