On August 28, 2026 4:24:36 AM EDT, Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 03:33:14PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 17:21:39 +0100
>> Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 09:15:41AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 07:31:23 +0100
>> > > Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Looking at the function again, shouldn't we add
>> > > > !rb_is_static(cpu_buffer) as
>> > > > well to the full page test?
>> > >
>> > > Why?
>> > >
>> > > -- Steve
>> >
>> > So that the splice can make progress when the ring-buffer is presistent or
>> > user-mapped. Or do we say that's expected behaviour?
>> >
>>
>> Ah yeah, I see. Hmm, looking at the code to see how this would work, I
>> think I found another bug. Let me look deeper into it.
>>
>> -- Steve
>
>A bug if we allow rb_is_static()?
No, something else.
>
>If not, shall I add it to my series?
Yeah, go ahead and update it.
Thanks,
-- Steve
