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.
- Heikki