This commit changes what provided by PR #3315 (merged) in order to
let the user specify the log level as a string.
The define could be also used, but when this happens, they must be
decoupled from the defines in the Redis core, like in the other part of
the Redis modules implementations, so that a switch statement (or a
function) remaps between the two, otherwise we are no longer free to
change the internal Redis defines.
This commit changes what provided by PR #3315 (merged) in order to
let the user specify the log level as a string.
The define could be also used, but when this happens, they must be
decoupled from the defines in the Redis core, like in the other part of
the Redis modules implementations, so that a switch statement (or a
function) remaps between the two, otherwise we are no longer free to
change the internal Redis defines.
This commit changes what provided by PR #3315 (merged) in order to
let the user specify the log level as a string.
The define could be also used, but when this happens, they must be
decoupled from the defines in the Redis core, like in the other part of
the Redis modules implementations, so that a switch statement (or a
function) remaps between the two, otherwise we are no longer free to
change the internal Redis defines.
Most of the time to check the last element is the way to go, however
there are patterns where the contrary is the best choice. Zig-zag
scanning implemented in this commmit always checks the obvious element
first (the last added -- think at a loop where the last element
allocated gets freed again and again), and continues checking one
element in the head and one in the tail.
Thanks to @dvisrky that fixed the original implementation of the
function and proposed zig zag scanning.
Most of the time to check the last element is the way to go, however
there are patterns where the contrary is the best choice. Zig-zag
scanning implemented in this commmit always checks the obvious element
first (the last added -- think at a loop where the last element
allocated gets freed again and again), and continues checking one
element in the head and one in the tail.
Thanks to @dvisrky that fixed the original implementation of the
function and proposed zig zag scanning.
Most of the time to check the last element is the way to go, however
there are patterns where the contrary is the best choice. Zig-zag
scanning implemented in this commmit always checks the obvious element
first (the last added -- think at a loop where the last element
allocated gets freed again and again), and continues checking one
element in the head and one in the tail.
Thanks to @dvisrky that fixed the original implementation of the
function and proposed zig zag scanning.
