On Wed, 20 May, at 11:52:34PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> >
> > Nope, the tests in this file are unit tests so I'm testing
> > free_cache_{get,put} which are file-local functions by #include'ing
> > ordered-events.c.
> >
> > The above defin
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May, at 02:04:08PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:01:51PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > ordered_event objects can be placed on the free object cache list in any
> > > order which means future allocations
On Mon, 18 May, at 02:04:08PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:01:51PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > ordered_event objects can be placed on the free object cache list in any
> > order which means future allocations may not return objects at
> > sequential locations in memory. Getting
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:01:51PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> ordered_event objects can be placed on the free object cache list in any
> order which means future allocations may not return objects at
> sequential locations in memory. Getting non-contiguous objects from the
> free cache has bad co
ordered_event objects can be placed on the free object cache list in any
order which means future allocations may not return objects at
sequential locations in memory. Getting non-contiguous objects from the
free cache has bad consequences when later iterating over those objects
in ordered_events__
5 matches
Mail list logo
