On 2020-08-28, Petr Mladek wrote:
>> Below is a patch against this series that adds support for finalizing
>> all 4 queried states. It passes all my tests. Note that the code handles
>> 2 corner cases:
>>
>> 1. When seq is 0, there is no previous descriptor to finalize. This
>>exception is im
On Thu 2020-08-27 12:04:58, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-08-26, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >> This series makes a very naive assumption that the previous
> >> descriptor is either in the reserved or committed queried states. The
> >> fact is, it can be in any of the 4 queried states. Adding support for
On Thu 2020-08-27 12:04:58, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-08-26, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >> This series makes a very naive assumption that the previous
> >> descriptor is either in the reserved or committed queried states. The
> >> fact is, it can be in any of the 4 queried states. Adding support for
Hi Petr,
Thanks for the review. Most of your suggested changes are fine and I'll
integrate them for the next version. Here a few comments on some open
issues.
On 2020-08-27, Petr Mladek wrote:
>> +static struct prb_desc *desc_reopen_last(struct prb_desc_ring *desc_ring,
>> +
Hi,
this mail is based on my review that I did last two days. I haven't
seen the last code that tried to handle the finalize issues.
Anyway, this feedback might give some clueue as well.
IMPORTANT: It seems that we both had different understanding of
the DESC_FINAL_MASK behavior. It might explain
On 2020-08-26, Petr Mladek wrote:
>> This series makes a very naive assumption that the previous
>> descriptor is either in the reserved or committed queried states. The
>> fact is, it can be in any of the 4 queried states. Adding support for
>> finalization of all the states then gets quite compl
On Wed 2020-08-26 14:43:22, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-08-26, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >>> @@ -1157,6 +1431,14 @@ bool prb_reserve(struct prb_reserved_entry *e,
> >>> struct printk_ringbuffer *rb,
> >>> goto fail;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * New data is about to be rese
On 2020-08-26, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>>> @@ -1157,6 +1431,14 @@ bool prb_reserve(struct prb_reserved_entry *e,
>>> struct printk_ringbuffer *rb,
>>> goto fail;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> +* New data is about to be reserved. Once that happens, previous
>>> +* descriptor
On (20/08/26 10:45), John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-08-24, John Ogness wrote:
> > @@ -1157,6 +1431,14 @@ bool prb_reserve(struct prb_reserved_entry *e,
> > struct printk_ringbuffer *rb,
> > goto fail;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > +* New data is about to be reserved. Once that happ
On 2020-08-24, John Ogness wrote:
> @@ -1157,6 +1431,14 @@ bool prb_reserve(struct prb_reserved_entry *e, struct
> printk_ringbuffer *rb,
> goto fail;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * New data is about to be reserved. Once that happens, previous
> + * descriptors are no long
Add support for extending the last data block. For this, introduce a new
finalization state flag that identifies if a descriptor may be extended.
When a writer calls the commit function prb_commit(), the record may still
continue to be in the reserved queried state. In order for that record to
ent
11 matches
Mail list logo
