On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:16 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:02PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > Actually, the code initializes it on the first call (recursing is > > false) and asserts that it must have been already initialized in a > > recursive (recursing is true) call. > > I have actually kept your simplified version. > > > Okay, sure. Maybe it's better to write the comment inside the if > > block, because if recursing is true, we don't drop yet. > > Sure. > > > Thoughts on suggestion to expand the test case? > > No objections to that, so done as per the attached. Does that match > what you were thinking about?
Thanks. The index on b is not really necessary for testing because it remains unaffected, but maybe it's fine. Regards, Amit
