On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 02:31:23PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 17:24:35 +0100 > Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is a legitimate concern. But with an easy solution. Perhaps just add: > > > > > > if (full && > > > (!read || (len < (size - read)) || > > > - cpu_buffer->reader_page == cpu_buffer->commit_page)) > > > + cpu_buffer->reader_page == cpu_buffer->commit_page) && > > > + data_page->order == buffer->subbuf_order) > > > return -1; > > > > > > If the user is changing the buffer size at the same time as reading raw > > > pages, they get what they deserve! I just don't want to let the kernel go > > > into an infinite loop. > > > > > > -- Steve > > > > > > > Sounds good. Do you prefer to get a v9 or you fold this into the existing > > commit? > > > > Please send a v9. It makes the patchwork flow much better. If I modify a > patch, it makes patchwork not be able to automate the status updates as it > moves around git trees. > > Thanks, > > -- Steve >
Looking at the function again, shouldn't we add !rb_is_static(cpu_buffer) as well to the full page test? -- Vincent
