On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:13:51 +0000
Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]>
