[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240110084205.2943f88bf8b797b04297b0ae@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:42:05 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] ring-buffer: Introducing ring-buffer mapping
functions
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:13:51 +0000
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -388,6 +389,7 @@ struct rb_irq_work {
> > > bool waiters_pending;
> > > bool full_waiters_pending;
> > > bool wakeup_full;
> > > + bool is_cpu_buffer;
> >
> > I think 'is_cpu_buffer' is a bit unclear (or generic),
> > what about 'meta_page_update'?
>
> Hum not sure about that change. This was really to identify if parent of
> rb_irq_work is a cpu_buffer or a trace_buffer. It can be a cpu_buffer regardless
> of the need to update the meta-page.
Yeah, I just meant that is "for_cpu_buffer", not "rb_irq_work is_cpu_buffer".
So when reading the code, I just felt uncomfortable.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists