On 24/11/2014 11:11, Ming Lei wrote: > Yes, the above change need the corresponding comment, but this > patch needn't since the 1st case won't reach here, :-)
I'm not sure I follow, but you can send v4 with a clearer comment I guess. :) Paolo
On 24/11/2014 11:11, Ming Lei wrote: > Yes, the above change need the corresponding comment, but this > patch needn't since the 1st case won't reach here, :-)
I'm not sure I follow, but you can send v4 with a clearer comment I guess. :) Paolo