Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-21543-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:42:05 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
 kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] ring-buffer: Introducing ring-buffer mapping
 functions
Message-Id: <20240110084205.2943f88bf8b797b04297b0ae@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZZ1ir0edlY3OzjyC@google.com>
References: <20240105094729.2363579-1-vdonnefort@google.com>
	<20240105094729.2363579-2-vdonnefort@google.com>
	<20240109234230.e99da87104d58fee59ad75c6@kernel.org>
	<ZZ1ir0edlY3OzjyC@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:13:51 +0000
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@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.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>