From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:43:55 +0000
Subject: Re: udev_queue_get_seqnum_is_finished
Message-Id: <49F0628B.8020808@tuffmail.co.uk>
List-Id: <linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org>
References: <49F0374E.2070000@tuffmail.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <49F0374E.2070000@tuffmail.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org

Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 13:20, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:
>  =20
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:39, Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk=
> wrote:
>>    =20
>
>  =20
>>> Shouldn't the test be (seqnum > udev_queue->last_seen_udev_seqnum) ?
>>> I.e. "greater than" instead of "less than".
>>>      =20
>> Sounds like.
>>    =20
>
> Care to check, if that makes sense now:
>   http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/hotplug/udev.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=8C3a=
e78546a535cc9288a190680fb1eb88c6ea7e
>  =20

Yes, that makes sense now.  Except for the comment, which seems to
accurately describes the old, confused code :-)

/* if we have not seen this seqnum, check if it is/was already queued */

to match the new code, I think it would be

/* if we have seen this seqnum, check if it is still queued */


Ta
Alan