On 07/01/2015 12:08 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (30/06/15 23:10), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> patches are attached.
There was a missing break cuased by wrong rebase.
I do not like the change in the first patch
It was written that way intentionally to
always have pos pointing to the end of the structure.
I know we currently do not use pos after the last
memcpy, but the code may change in the future.
I do not see this patch as an improvement. Was
there some tool giving you warnings about the
dead increment? I think it is OK to ignore such
warning. If you still want the patch being
pushed, send it in another thread so that
our discussion about it will not stand in the
way of the rest of the patches in this set.
ACK to the rest of the patches.
CI link (I ran the CI together with the
other memcache patches that Lukas sent in
So again. ACK to all patches except for the first patch.
Senior Principal Intern