Varun Naik <vcnai...@gmail.com> writes:

>> Either is fine as the implementation of the same semantics; I
>> however am not sure if two I-T-A entries should compare "same" or
>> "not same", or if we are better off catching the caller that feeds
>> two I-T-A entries to same() with a BUG().
>
> I'd argue that two ita cache entries should be a BUG. Since we believe
> that a cache entry in the tree can never have the intent-to-add bit set,
> it suffices to show that no call to same() ever passes two cache entries
> from the index.
> ...
> The same argument probably extends to the conflicted bit, but changing
> that is probably out of scope of this patch.

Yup.  I think the patch as-posted is fine.  I also agree that
tightening the validity check of parameters to same() is better done
as a separate topic.

Reply via email to