On Wed, Mar 28 2018, Andreas Grünbacher wrote:
> Neil,
>
> 2018-03-27 1:33 GMT+02:00 NeilBrown :
>> The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to
>> return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
>> entry.
>> However if no entries have yet been returned - or
Neil,
2018-03-27 1:33 GMT+02:00 NeilBrown :
> The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to
> return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
> entry.
> However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator
> was reset due to a resize event, then
From: NeilBrown
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:33:04 +1100
> The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to
> return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
> entry.
> However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator
> was reset due to a resize e
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:33:04AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to
> return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
> entry.
> However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator
> was reset due to a resiz
Hello!
On 3/27/2018 2:33 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to
return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
entry.
However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator
was reset due to a resize event, then rhash
The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to
return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous*
entry.
However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator
was reset due to a resize event, then rhashtable_walk_peek()
*does* return the next entry, bu
