Sorry, I must have pushed the wrong version. I'll send a patch.
On 3 June 2014 12:19, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>
> On 3 June 2014 08:41, Ethan Jackson wrote:
>
>> The comment over the trylock exceeds the line limit.
>>
>
> I'll fix that up.
>
On Jun 2, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 3 June 2014 08:41, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> The comment over the trylock exceeds the line limit.
>
> I'll fix that up.
>
> I'm not sure if this is the right patch to fix it or not, but I don't
> like how we're overloading the meaning of the
On 3 June 2014 08:41, Ethan Jackson wrote:
> The comment over the trylock exceeds the line limit.
>
I'll fix that up.
> I'm not sure if this is the right patch to fix it or not, but I don't
> like how we're overloading the meaning of the 'mark'. I think the
> code would be a lot clearer if we
The comment over the trylock exceeds the line limit.
I'm not sure if this is the right patch to fix it or not, but I don't
like how we're overloading the meaning of the 'mark'. I think the
code would be a lot clearer if we had both a "already_dumped" flag and
a "delete" flag on every ukey. What
A series of bugs have been identified recently that are caused by a
combination of the awkward flow dump API, possibility of duplicate flows
in a flow dump, and premature optimisation of the revalidator logic.
This patch attempts to simplify the revalidator logic by combining
multiple critical sect
