On Wed, Mar 28 2018, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: > Neil, > > 2018-03-27 1:33 GMT+02:00 NeilBrown <ne...@suse.com>: >> 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. > > how about I come up with a replacement so that we can remove > rhashtable_walk_peek straight away without making it differently > broken in the meantime? >
Hi Andreas, I'd be very happy with that outcome - thanks for the offer! NeilBrown
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
