Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <152210718418.11435.11573013181393548255.stgit@noble>
References: <152210688405.11435.13010923693146415942.stgit@noble> <152210718418.11435.11573013181393548255.stgit@noble>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= <andreas.gruenbacher@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:46:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHpGcMJgys_gMOw-VEpbO6w+NFaww-P6OvL=jwZfie9TxD9ZYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] rhashtable: improve documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek()
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc:     Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Neil,

2018-03-27 1:33 GMT+02:00 NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>:
> 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, but also advances the iterator.
>
> I suspect that this interface should be discarded and the one user
> should be changed to not require it.  Possibly this patch should be
> seen as a first step in that conversation.
>
> This patch mostly corrects the documentation, but does make a
> small code change so that the documentation can be correct without
> listing too many special cases.  I don't think the one user will
> be affected by the code change.

how about I come up with a replacement so that we can remove
rhashtable_walk_peek straight away without making it differently
broken in the meantime?

Thanks,
Andreas