On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:41:59 -0800
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 13:39, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > So the above "complexity" is *literally* just changing the
> >
> > (new = atomic_read_acquire(>seq)) != old
> >
> > condition to
> >
> >
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 13:39, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So the above "complexity" is *literally* just changing the
>
> (new = atomic_read_acquire(>seq)) != old
>
> condition to
>
> should_exit ||
> (new = atomic_read_acquire(>seq)) != old
..
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 13:33, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> There's two layers:
>
> 1) the ring buffer has the above simple producer / consumer.
>Where the wake ups can happen at the point of where the buffer has
>the amount filled that the consumer wants to start consuming with.
>
> 2) The
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 12:39:10 -0800
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > A patch was sent to "fix" the wait_index variable that is used to help with
> > waking of waiters on the ring buffer. The patch was rejected, but I started
> > looking at
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> A patch was sent to "fix" the wait_index variable that is used to help with
> waking of waiters on the ring buffer. The patch was rejected, but I started
> looking at associated code. Discussing it on IRC with Mathieu Desnoyers
> we
A patch was sent to "fix" the wait_index variable that is used to help with
waking of waiters on the ring buffer. The patch was rejected, but I started
looking at associated code. Discussing it on IRC with Mathieu Desnoyers
we discovered a design flaw.
The waiter reads "wait_index" then enters
6 matches
Mail list logo
