On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 06:58:13PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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
I'll actually solve that by moving that update from the rb_irq_work to
ring_buffer_map_get_reader().
Reason is the rb_irq_work is only triggered when !O_NONBLOCK is set.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to kernel-team+unsubscr...@android.com.
>
