On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:38:42 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 09:19:21 -0400 > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rost...@goodmis.org> > > > > The check for knowing if the poll should wait or not is basically the > > exact same logic as rb_watermark_hit(). The only difference is that > > rb_watermark_hit() also handles the !full case. But for the full case, the > > logic is the same. Just call that instead of duplicating the code in > > ring_buffer_poll_wait(). > > > > This changes a bit (e.g. adding pagebusy check) but basically that should > be there. And new version appears to be consistent between ring_buffer_wait() > and ring_buffer_poll_wait(). So looks good to me. The pagebusy check is an optimization. As if it is true, it means the writer is still on the reader_page and there's no sub-buffers available. It just prevents having to do the calculation of the buffer-percentage filled (what's done by the full_hit() logic). > > Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org> > Thanks! -- Steve
