On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:39:40 -0400 (EDT)
> "Robert P. J. Day" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > note how the comment says that the next entry will "usually" be
> > sg+1, "but" not if it's actually a pointer.
> >
> > however, as i read the code above, sg is *always* incremented before
> > that testing. is that correct? am i just misreading something? or
> > could the comment have been a bit clearer?
>
> If it increments sg and finds a "chain" entry, it will follow it to
> the next sg array instead of just returning it. Which makes sense
> because the chain entry itself isn't a valid entry in the sg list.
yes, i finally twigged on that after a few more minutes. it, of
course, makes sense, but it sure doesn't match the comment that's at
the top of that file.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
