Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 31/8/06 1:37 am, "Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> grr, I take it back, I am the one that's confused :P
>>
>> OK, this all happens because this whole blob of code is crazy because it
>> is missing a "if (size == 0)" check!
> 
> It's not really missing. We could have a size==0 check *or* we can have the
> v!=u check. We don't need both and I think the latter is more obviously
> correct, as the test is closer to the code that it 'protects'. Also it's a
> fairly idiomatic way of generating and flushing batches of work.
>

So what is really wrong with this code?  Or is the flushes need even on 
size == 0?

-- Steve

Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>