Re: [PATCH v10 1/2] ring-buffer: Introducing ring-buffer mapping functions

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:42:05 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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