27 May
2015
27 May
'15
9:58 p.m.
Hi, Sergey! On May 27, Sergey Vojtovich wrote:
Hi Sergei,
my concern was that we do if (!rep_quick) twice in a very short distance. Anyway, this was just a minor wish. Final decision is up to you.
I've already fixed it. Regards, Sergei
Why not to move new_data_cache initialization down along with rec_cache?
I've simply kept it where it was, the goal was to avoid
io_cache.file=new_file_descriptor;
for example, there was
info->rec_cache.file=new_file;
and I moved info->rec_cache initialization down where new_file was known and could be passed as an argument to init_io_cache(). There was no such problem with new_data_cache.