[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180327.114700.1341444619952240925.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: neilb@...e.com
Cc: tgraf@...g.ch, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] rhashtable: improve documentation for
rhashtable_walk_peek()
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:33:04 +1100
> The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to
> return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
> entry.
> However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator
> was reset due to a resize event, then rhashtable_walk_peek()
> *does* return the next entry, but also advances the iterator.
>
> I suspect that this interface should be discarded and the one user
> should be changed to not require it. Possibly this patch should be
> seen as a first step in that conversation.
>
> This patch mostly corrects the documentation, but does make a
> small code change so that the documentation can be correct without
> listing too many special cases. I don't think the one user will
> be affected by the code change.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Please mention the "one user" explicitly in both locations where
you refer to it in this commit message.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists