On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:03:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Good idea to move the comments so what you proposes looks fine to me.
> Are there any objections?
Okay, committed.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 03:59:36PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> In the attached, I've used your language, and also moved the comments
> closer to the code they are describing. That seems more logical and
> future proof.
Good idea to move the comments so what you proposes looks fine to me.
Are there
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:10 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:12:31PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> > That's probably better.
>
> Would you like to send an updated patch? Perhaps you have a better
> idea?
> --
> Michael
In the attached, I've used your language, and also move
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:12:31PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> That's probably better.
Would you like to send an updated patch? Perhaps you have a better
idea?
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:00 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:41:50PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> > Attached is an attempt to match surrounding code. More broadly,
> > though, it seems the "ID info" comments belong with the SET_LOCKTAG_*
> > macros rather than with the LockT
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:41:50PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> Attached is an attempt to match surrounding code. More broadly,
> though, it seems the "ID info" comments belong with the SET_LOCKTAG_*
> macros rather than with the LockTagType enum members.
+ LOCKTAG_SPECULATIVE_TOKEN, /* for spec
