On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/2014 04:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
>> hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I propose the attached (I admit I haven't tested it).
>>>
>> Actually if you do it this way I think that it would be worth adding the
>> small optimization Fujii-san mentioned upthread: if priority is equal to
>> 1,
>> we leave the loop earlier and return immediately the pointer. All those
>> things gathered give the patch attached, that I actually tested FWIW with
>> multiple standbys and multiple entries in s_s_names.
>
>
> Ok, committed.
Thanks!
--
Michael