On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:34:28AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

quoted

XXX: might want a bigger name, and possible a better implementation
that doesn't require two lookups in the radix tree.

And these need to be looked into.  I can take a stab at it, but I need
to get a few other things off my plate first.

Yeah.  It works well enough for unsharing blocks, if inefficiently.

Not sure what "a bigger name" means, though.  I tried feeding the
function prototype through figlet but gcc didn't like that. ;)

That should have been "better", sorry.