Re: [PATCH] ptr_ring: document usage around __ptr_ring_peek

2018-01-15 Thread David Miller
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:03:05 +0200 > This explains why is the net usage of __ptr_ring_peek > actually ok without locks. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin Applied, thanks Michael.

Re: [PATCH] ptr_ring: document usage around __ptr_ring_peek

2018-01-10 Thread John Fastabend
On 01/10/2018 06:03 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This explains why is the net usage of __ptr_ring_peek > actually ok without locks. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > --- > > John - I think this is more or less what you meant. Is that right? Yep, thanks for following up. Acked-by: John

[PATCH] ptr_ring: document usage around __ptr_ring_peek

2018-01-10 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
This explains why is the net usage of __ptr_ring_peek actually ok without locks. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin --- John - I think this is more or less what you meant. Is that right? include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 14 ++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a