On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 02:23:30PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:19:04AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:11:33PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > ...
> > > > static struct test_ringbuf_map_key_lskel *skel_map_key;
> > > > +static struct
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:19:04AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:11:33PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> ...
> > > static struct test_ringbuf_map_key_lskel *skel_map_key;
> > > +static struct test_ringbuf_n_lskel *skel_n;
> >
> > seems like there's no need for this to be
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:11:33PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
...
> > static struct test_ringbuf_map_key_lskel *skel_map_key;
> > +static struct test_ringbuf_n_lskel *skel_n;
>
> seems like there's no need for this to be static variable
Can you elaborate more? I think we want these pointers to be
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 05:59:04PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Add a testcase for the ring_buffer__consume_n() API.
>
> The test produces multiple samples in a ring buffer, using a
> sys_getpid() fentry prog, and consumes them from user-space in batches,
> rather than consuming all of them
Add a testcase for the ring_buffer__consume_n() API.
The test produces multiple samples in a ring buffer, using a
sys_getpid() fentry prog, and consumes them from user-space in batches,
rather than consuming all of them greedily, like ring_buffer__consume()
does.
Link:
