From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756825Ab0CKTVm (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:21:42 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13300 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755385Ab0CKTVl (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:21:41 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <4B993229.7090302@xenotime.net> References: <4B993229.7090302@xenotime.net> <20100311172055.7328.51353.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Randy Dunlap Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sgruszka@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's circular buffering capabilities Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:20:38 +0000 Message-ID: <10220.1268335238@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Randy Dunlap wrote: > Do the "[1]" here and in the previous section refer to note [1] below? > If so, then the CIRC_CNT*() paragraphs below could use "[2]" for consistency. Good point. David