> On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:39:23AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 03:57:09PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
Having a coverage counter tracking the value o
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:39:23AM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 03:57:09PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> >> Having a coverage counter tracking the value of the internal seq_next
> >> should help in debugging.
>
> On Dec 8, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 03:57:09PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>>> Having a coverage counter tracking the value of the internal seq_next
>>> should help in debugging.
>>>
>>> Sug
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 03:57:09PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Having a coverage counter tracking the value of the internal seq_next
>> should help in debugging.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Justin Pettit
>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
>
> Ac
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 03:57:09PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Having a coverage counter tracking the value of the internal seq_next
> should help in debugging.
>
> Suggested-by: Justin Pettit
> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
Acked-by: Ben Pfaff