On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:39:40 -0400 (EDT) > "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > note how the comment says that the next entry will "usually" be > > sg+1, "but" not if it's actually a pointer. > > > > however, as i read the code above, sg is *always* incremented before > > that testing. is that correct? am i just misreading something? or > > could the comment have been a bit clearer? > > If it increments sg and finds a "chain" entry, it will follow it to > the next sg array instead of just returning it. Which makes sense > because the chain entry itself isn't a valid entry in the sg list.
yes, i finally twigged on that after a few more minutes. it, of course, makes sense, but it sure doesn't match the comment that's at the top of that file. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
