On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:42:05 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:13:51 +0000
> Vincent Donnefort <vdonnef...@google.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.
>
How about "in_cpu_buffer" as that is what it is.
struct ring_buffer_per_cpu {
struct rb_irq_work {
bool in_cpu_buffer;
}
}
Would that make you feel more comfortable? ;-)
-- Steve
