On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:44:12PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> On 28/11/2014 18:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:26PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> >>On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
On 28/11/2014 18:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:26PM +, John Harrison wrote:
On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
The ring member of the object structure was always
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:49:26PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> >>From: John Harrison
> >>
> >>The ring member of the object structure was always updated with the
> >>last_rea
On 26/11/2014 13:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
The ring member of the object structure was always updated with the
last_read_seqno member. Thus with the conversion to last_read_req, obj->ring is
now a dir
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:49:43PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison
>
> The ring member of the object structure was always updated with the
> last_read_seqno member. Thus with the conversion to last_read_req, obj->ring
> is
> now a direct copy of obj->last_read_req->
From: John Harrison
The ring member of the object structure was always updated with the
last_read_seqno member. Thus with the conversion to last_read_req, obj->ring is
now a direct copy of obj->last_read_req->ring. This makes it somewhat redundant
and potentially misleading (especially as there w
