On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:16 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:02PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Actually, the code initializes it on the first call (recursing is
> > false) and asserts that it must have been already initialized in a
> > recursive (recursing is true) call.
>
> I have actually kept your simplified version.
>
> > Okay, sure. Maybe it's better to write the comment inside the if
> > block, because if recursing is true, we don't drop yet.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Thoughts on suggestion to expand the test case?
>
> No objections to that, so done as per the attached. Does that match
> what you were thinking about?
Thanks. The index on b is not really necessary for testing because it
remains unaffected, but maybe it's fine.
Regards,
Amit