CTDB: Patch set re-based because of updates

[Martin Schwenke]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:00:34 +0100, Swen Schillig <swen at vnet.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Hi Martin
> On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 16:48 +1100, Martin Schwenke via samba-technical
> wrote:
> > Hi Sven,
> > 
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:46:26 +0100, Swen Schillig <swen at vnet.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, 2018-03-19 at 11:28 +0100, Swen Schillig wrote:  
>  [...]  
> > > Updated patch-set...found one-bug.  
> > 
> > OK, my apologies for this, given that I've already given a RB+ but...  
> No problem, that's why we're doing those review's, I'd just wish we
> could get slightly less iterative :-)
> > 
> > One of the threads about one of your other patches prompted me to
> > read
> > the section in README.Coding about function
> > calls/declarations/definitions (including the recent change).  I
> > can't remember if I read it before or after the previous RB+.
> > 
> > Some of the cleanups don't meet the all on 1 line or 1 per line
> > thing... that was new to me too.
> > 
> > Similarly, there's a for loop that's end up like this:
> > 
> > +	for (rev_hdl = ctdb_db->revokechild_active; rev_hdl;
> > +	     rev_hdl = rev_hdl->next) {
> > I think that would be clearer if it were 1-per-line.  
> Well, that "new" thing came in after we started this patch-series,
> maybe that's why.
> > 
> > Sorry for the churn...  
> No problem at all !!
> 
> Here's the updated one.

Oops.  The last commit doesn't move the DLIST_ADD_END() but it inserts
an additional use of that macro.  I think this was correct in an earlier
version but must have got lost in the rebase.  :-(

peace & happiness,
martin