* Alex Benn?e (alex.ben...@linaro.org) wrote: > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> writes: > > > * Peter Crosthwaite (peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com) wrote: > >> This was guarding against a full fifo rather than an empty fifo when > >> popping. Fix. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> > >> --- > > > > Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > > > I think this brings it back to how it was on the old FIFO code. > > This does make me wonder why it was changed? Was there another crashing > case it fixed?
The old serial code had it's own FIFO implementation, and that was removed so that we had one less FIFO in the codebase; the problem was that the old one in the serial code just returned 0 when empty, the shared one aborts. Dave -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
