Frediano Ziglio writes:
>>
>> Frediano Ziglio writes:
>>
>> > Is just used by ring_remove, no reason to have it.
>>
>> Nack. I think there is a good reason: the code and its intent is much
>> clearer with a "ring_remove" name.
>>
>
> Don't get it... are you saying __ring_remove name is more clear
>
> Frediano Ziglio writes:
>
> > Is just used by ring_remove, no reason to have it.
>
> Nack. I think there is a good reason: the code and its intent is much
> clearer with a "ring_remove" name.
>
Don't get it... are you saying __ring_remove name is more clear than
ring_remove ?
>
> >
> > S
Frediano Ziglio writes:
> Is just used by ring_remove, no reason to have it.
Nack. I think there is a good reason: the code and its intent is much
clearer with a "ring_remove" name.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio
> ---
> common/ring.h | 11 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+),
