On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 1:35 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dilip,
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:45 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:52 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh I missed that the problem report is for the PG13 branch.
> > >
> > > How about the attached patch then?
> > >
> > Looks good,
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
> > one minor comment, how about making the below comment,
> > same as on the head?
> >
> > - if (!found || !entry->replicate_valid)
> > + if (!found)
> > + {
> > + /*
> > + * Make the new entry valid enough for the callbacks to look at, in
> > + * case any of them get invoked during the more complicated
> > + * initialization steps below.
> > + */
> >
> > On head:
> > if (!found)
> > {
> > /* immediately make a new entry valid enough to satisfy callbacks */
>
> Agree it's better to have the same comment in both branches.
>
> Though, I think it should be "the new entry", not "a new entry". I
> find the sentence I wrote a bit more enlightening, but I am fine with
> just fixing the aforementioned problem with the existing comment.
>
> I've updated the patch. Also, attaching a patch for HEAD for the
> s/a/the change. While at it, I also capitalized "immediately".
>
Your patch looks good to me as well. I would like to retain the
comment as it is from master for now. I'll do some testing and push it
tomorrow unless there are additional comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.