Re: [PATCH 2/2] notes.c: fix off-by-one error when decreasing notes fanout

[Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>]

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:05 AM brian m. carlson
<sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> On 2020-02-03 at 21:04:45, Johan Herland wrote:
> > always follow the ->next pointer from the last non-note we wrote.
> > (This part is was caught by an existing test in t3304.)
>
> I think you have "is was" here.  You probably want one or the other.

Will fix.

> > Cc: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
> > Cc: Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
>
> I generally write my name in lower case, but I think typically we prefer
> to omit Cc lines in patches (unlike LKML), so it may just be better to
> remove these lines.

Ack. Will remove.

> > Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
>
> Patch 1 looked good to me.  Your explanation here makes sense, but I
> must admit that I still don't understand this code, so I can't give an
> outright approval.  I do appreciate that it comes with a test, though.

Thanks for having a look. I must admit it's hard to get back into this
code even though I originally wrote it. I've been trying to prepare a
patch #3 which decreases the fanout more aggressively on notes removal
(having a fanout of 1 in a tree of 17 notes is  bit ridiculous, IMHO),
but I'm not yet able to figure something out that behaves in a stable
manner. (I find scenarios where removing a note will switch fanout
from 1 to 0, but removing another note will then switch fanout from 0
back to 1, and so on, and the current notes code does not have these
problems, AFAICS.)

> I haven't tested, but I expect this series will make Dscho's patch
> unnecessary, so I'll drop it in my reroll unless one of you tells me to
> keep it.

Yes, my patch includes Dscho's change. I don't particularly care
whichever lands first, and I can easily rebase on top of yours.

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net