On 12 Sep 2019, at 9:25, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 09:13 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> (Unless I'm missing something.  I haven't looked at this code in a
>> while.  Though it was problem me that wrote it originally--apologies
>> for
>> that....)
> The function itself is fine. It was just the name I'm objecting to,
> since we're actually moving the last 'n' bytes in the message in order
> to be able to read them.

Ok, that's helpful guidance since it saves me from doing a stable fix and
then an attempt to rename/optimize/breakitagain.

I'll just rename it at the same time as the fix.. but now I wonder if that
can potentially mess up other fixes that might retroactively get sent to
stable.  Maybe I'm over thinking it.  I guess I'll send the fix and then the
rename separately, and maintainers can squash at will.


Reply via email to