public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
To: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexandre Felipe <[email protected]>
Cc: Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: tid_blockno() and tid_offset() accessor functions
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 09:34:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKAnmm+gW9J4hr38g0uSUsswAVq+=bUYSSXp9tZrMegLyWieOg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAJTYsWUzok2+mvSYkbVUwq_SWWg-GdHqCuYumN82AU97SjwjCA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJTYsWVK6rw++WU94=gFk5ZR5ZXhT3BYOFxhm6tT9xOGG-drnA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE8JnxMXxJBs+U5HKkOfLd66vQHZ14XREHcEh-7_p-osaccFmQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:31 PM Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote:
> No opinion. For displaying the bogus TID value (like "(-1,0)") it's
> probably OK to show values that are a bit weird. If anything, we should
> be more careful on input, it's too late for tid_block() to decide what to
> do with an "impossible" TID value.
>
This one doesn't sit right with me. I think it's not too late. No reason
why tid_block cannot be stricter here than tid itself and complain. Other
than that, the patch looks good to me.
Cheers,
Greg
view thread (18+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: tid_blockno() and tid_offset() accessor functions
In-Reply-To: <CAKAnmm+gW9J4hr38g0uSUsswAVq+=bUYSSXp9tZrMegLyWieOg@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox