On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 20:34 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, the idea is that /* */ is used for explanatory comments and //
> is left for local, temporary, non-commitable stuff.
>
> i.e. if you are testing some stuff, and want to comment out some bits
> briefly, use //, but if you add expl
On Do, 14.12.17 21:14, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> > > +if (j->current_location.type == LOCATION_DISCRETE)
> > > +// only == 0 or not matters
> >
> > Please use C comments, /* */, see CODING_STYLE.
>
> That is a standard C comment... IMO
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 10:35 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 14.12.17 03:56, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> > BTW current sd_journal_next() documentation claims "The journal is
> > strictly ordered by reception time, and hence advancing to the next
> > entry guarantees that
On Do, 14.12.17 03:56, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 18:40 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mi, 13.12.17 00:43, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> > > correct position, so I don't see why the monotonicity discard would be
> > > needed for t
On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 18:40 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mi, 13.12.17 00:43, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> > correct position, so I don't see why the monotonicity discard would be
> > needed for that case either?
>
> I figure you are right.
>
> Any chance you can prep a
On Mi, 13.12.17 00:43, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 21:38 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Maybe the approach needs to be that we immedately increase the read
> > record ptr of a specific file by one when we read it, so that we know
> > we monotonically
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 21:38 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Maybe the approach needs to be that we immedately increase the read
> record ptr of a specific file by one when we read it, so that we know
> we monotonically progress through the file. And then change the logic
> that looks for the nex
On Di, 12.12.17 21:00, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 17:09 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mo, 11.12.17 00:36, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> > > consider a clear bug: there's code in next_beyond_location() which
> > > skips the next e
On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 17:09 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mo, 11.12.17 00:36, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> > consider a clear bug: there's code in next_beyond_location() which
> > skips the next entry in a file if it's not in the expected direction
> > from the previous gl
On Mo, 11.12.17 00:36, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> The code that tries to determine which of two journal entries is
> "earlier" (similar logic in journal_file_comparare_locations() and
> compare_with_location()) does this by trying different progressively
> less reliable ways to
The code that tries to determine which of two journal entries is
"earlier" (similar logic in journal_file_comparare_locations() and
compare_with_location()) does this by trying different progressively
less reliable ways to compare - first by seqnum if seqnum id matches,
then by monotonic time if bo
11 matches
Mail list logo
