From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:26:35 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <4eb26b52caa8ef236c147e71669289bb@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <44b3232235d0068cf251d2005740321a@rei2.9hal>
References: <44b3232235d0068cf251d2005740321a@rei2.9hal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] dns
Topicbox-Message-UUID: add4f0fc-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed Aug 22 10:51:02 EDT 2012, cinap_lenrek@gmx.de wrote:
> this is interesting. the p != qp->curdest check would just
> support my point because it effectively checks if p is valid.
> if p would be at qp->curdest, it would be past the last valid
> entry and hence invalid so its not written.

if that's true, then this could be some of the most convoluted
code we've got.

- erik