On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Arne Welzel wrote:
> Mikulas,
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> > Reviewed-by: Mikulas Patocka <[email protected]>
> >
>
> thank you for the review. After looking at the submitted patch again,
> seems more proper to use >= as the condition:
>
> > > + if (unlikely(percpu_counter_read_positive(&cc->n_allocated_pages) >
> > > dm_crypt_pages_per_client) &&
> ^^
> >=
> Would it be okay if I resend the patch with this changed and add your
> Reviewed-by still? Would also fix some wording in the description and
> dedent the perf report output somewhat.
>
> Thanks,
> Arne
OK - you can resend the patch with my "Reviewed-by".
Mikulas
--
dm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
