On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 12:55:54PM +0300, Maksim.Melnikov wrote:
> On 10.04.2025 12:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hmm, yeah. Instead of last, it would be better to put it in second
>> place perhaps, for clarity? That would be the same at the end, but we
>> would be slightly more consistent with the past logic regarding the
>> ordering. Does that look OK to you?
>
> Yes, from my point of view it looks fine.
Thanks for the double-check. I've played a couple more hours with the
startup case, like playing with s_s_names set but uninitialized in
shmem while stucking backends, and that seems OK, so applied down to
v13. Let's see how it goes..
--
Michael