Guennadi Liakhovetski

@xiulipan it would be a different debugfs file, sure, similar to the logger. Yes, you would have to capture it explicitly, it wouldn't be saved automatically, and it would be...

@plbossart @lgirdwood I'd like to have some more opinions on my proposal to implement this as a debugfs file in addition to @xiulipan's comment

> I have reworked on sat-24,16 and 8 code and addressed performance loss !! With latest check-in there is no performance difference between `Before` and `After` my modification. so, there's...

> Can one of the admins verify this patch? > > > reply **test this please** to run this test once test this please

> Thank you for your review, and I have made the necessary changes. Please read through and make a suggestion. Thanks, measurements are good, but I think it would be...

@ShriramShastry thanks for the detailed explanation. Briefly to your points (I removed some explanations for brevity): > Key Points of Improvement (1)Accumulator Data Size Reduction Ok, this is a clear...

@ShriramShastry sorry, I must be missing something. I still don't *quite* see "Reduced memory allocation overhead" or "Enhanced data locality, improving cache efficiency" or other related changes, announced in the...

> Thank you very much for the reviews. _As for specific improvements, I'm still not sure whether this actually improves anything_ It would be helpful to understand what specific concerns...

> > > Thank you very much for the reviews. _As for specific improvements, I'm still not sure whether this actually improves anything_ It would be helpful to understand what...

> I support @teburd's suggestion to flush logging. For logging to NOT copy the format strings and parameters into the buffer, there are specific conditions that need to be met...