From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] rhashtable: improve documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20180327.114700.1341444619952240925.davem@davemloft.net> References: <152210688405.11435.13010923693146415942.stgit@noble> <152210718418.11435.11573013181393548255.stgit@noble> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tgraf@suug.ch, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: neilb@suse.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <152210718418.11435.11573013181393548255.stgit@noble> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: NeilBrown Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:33:04 +1100 > The documentation for rhashtable_walk_peek() wrong. It claims to > return the *next* entry, whereas it in fact returns the *previous* > entry. > However if no entries have yet been returned - or if the iterator > was reset due to a resize event, then rhashtable_walk_peek() > *does* return the next entry, but also advances the iterator. > > I suspect that this interface should be discarded and the one user > should be changed to not require it. Possibly this patch should be > seen as a first step in that conversation. > > This patch mostly corrects the documentation, but does make a > small code change so that the documentation can be correct without > listing too many special cases. I don't think the one user will > be affected by the code change. > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown Please mention the "one user" explicitly in both locations where you refer to it in this commit message. Thank you.