On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:18:44PM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 20/06/18 09:59, Arseny Sher wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>>> It seems to me that we still want to have the slot forwarding finish in
>>> this case even if this is interrupted. Petr, isn't that the intention
>>> here?
>
> Well, it seems wasteful to just exit there if we already finished all
> the requested work, also gives some consistency with the coding of
> get/peek_changes. Not very important for the functionality either way.
I like the concept of consistency.
Could it be possible to get a patch from all the feedback and exchange
gathered here? Petr, I think that it would not hurt if you use the set
of words and comments you think is most adapted as the primary author of
the feature.
--
Michael
