On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:42:05 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:13:51 +0000
Vincent Donnefort [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -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