Re: [PATCH] perf: fix ring_buffer perf_output_space() boundary calculation

[Stephane Eranian]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 14:03 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 13:48 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >>         if (!rb->writable)
>> >> -               return true;
>> >> +               return false;
>> >
>> >
>> > writable means user writable (VM_WRITE); the difference is that a
>> > !VM_WRITE buffer will simply over-write its own tail whereas a VM_WRITE
>> > buffer will drop events.
>> >
>> > So returning true for !VM_WRITE makes sense, there's always space.
>> >
>> Ok, that was not so clear to me. I think this if() statment deserves a comment.
>> I will add that in V2.
>
> Thanks; I suppose renaming the entire ->writable thing might be better
> though. Something like ->overwrite or so.
>
Yes. And if you do this you invert the logic of the field.
overwrite=1 -> !VM_WRITE
overwrite=0 -> VM_WRITE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/