[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Libevent-users] Incremental search
- To: libevent-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [Libevent-users] Incremental search
- From: Azat Khuzhin <a3at.mail@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:14:59 +0300
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: libevent-users-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: libevent-users@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:15:03 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rL3K0doeWYtVE0Q8sMUE6huIOq7OTBVDcqTkRvUbXv8=; b=myYfoUQ/4pr5i1bGh0Tz+jxe7GOtIbYKMyS6SVODBMloIhbCd0Ry0NRgaFAggEtsXX d5n5Ahy5T/JjceOSVPDF0mvf40DrsDsNTPKwS2O9aqhFtlhUUwMMaJKZIIf448Zlz7SC 7CFShjWpVVcx3A2Np9D2jeeKn+7kKrVkBaIS6Mq2OPbNk73iFRgFg/iF0iU2P00uifsA oXUHFznAjNWWiQffG8XdAOL4w3gewGBms0sgbNDLHWjpuajbT0NqNi3mqtFGThjp5VQT oQAYMPYDmlnf/D8bbap9bmDiznoLKe8qetWwBlEKCDH/3McoFDbGQ6LYIYtBL3FhyjdV 2kMA==
- In-reply-to: <20171217011824.GA5273@orkisz>
- References: <20171215110215.GA3189@orkisz> <CAG5DWojTW23LTRC12_=5a_S8exmArUA3KZeVAAR1p3jEpfY=hA@mail.gmail.com> <20171216215708.GA3141@orkisz> <CAG5DWohu0fwn4VzuFj816Y6ST4B9A=0HXDwzdAPD7vCcHor2Ag@mail.gmail.com> <20171217011824.GA5273@orkisz>
- Reply-to: libevent-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-libevent-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Marcin,
> I think that the last_with_datap comment needs some adjustments. It
> states:
>
> "The last_with_datap pointer points at _whatever 'next' pointer_
> points at the last_with_datap chain."
>
> There is probably a typo and it should be "last_with_data chain", not
> "last_with_datap chain".
>
> And I think it would be grammatically correct and clearer if it were:
>
> "The last_with_datap pointer points at _whatever 'next' pointer_
> pointing at the last_with_data chain."
Indeed, patch?
> BTW, I was also looking for (\*.*last_with_datap.*[^=]=[^=]) an
> explanation for the pointer's indirectness and found only one occurrence
> where .next of some chain is modified via that pointer:
>
> PRESERVE_PINNED(): *src->last_with_datap = tmp;
>
> All other cases seem to dereference .last_with_datap to a pointer to an
> actual chain first.
I don't see "why?", since there is an assert(pinned ==
last_with_datap) and evbuffer_chain_new() does not change
last_with_datap, so it should be changed.
Yeah it is confusing.
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe libevent-users in the body.