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. Ben