►
From YouTube: 2019-06-12:: Crimson SeaStor OSD Weekly Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
Like
I
paired
eat
anything
last
week,
a
judge
I
just
amended
to
2
to
the
5th
in
90
days,
to
to
add
a
flavor
of
a
crimson
to
stick
field.
So
it
when
we
push
to
the
Sept
STI
repertory
it
energy.
In
addition
to
existing
two
flavors
like
default
and
notice.
America
will
also
have
a
committed
which
will
produce.
B
A
The
negative
result
is
when,
when
you
push
to
sifters
60i
before
the
change,
we
only
have
two
flavors
like
key
port
and
the
node
TTIP
Mellark,
and
after
this
change
we
will
have
also
crimson
flavor,
in
which
it
it
will
the
pectin.
We
appeal
down
tonic
with
a
cheese
deny
and
another
package
named,
the
stiffs,
crimson
or
tea
will
be
produced.
A
The
idea
is
to
it
will
be
consumed
by
our
pathology
installation
tasks
and
will
will
be
integrated
into
our
CBD
test,
which
will
serve
as
a
baseline
to
be
compared
to
compared
with
our
performance
has
integrated
noise
in
our
CI,
because
alfredo
is
still
on
PDL.
So
I
will
put
you
on
it,
defer
it
to
deeper
discussion
with
it
with
him
for
later,
when
right
back.
A
C
D
A
B
D
D
Want
to
be
able
to
run
the
lower
end
crashing
tests
as
it
becomes
meaningful
to
do
so.
Oh,
you
may
not
be
familiar
with
technology.
Pathology
has
a
tremendous.
What
would
be
large
number
of
failure
injection
tests
whose
job
it
is
to
run
workloads
against
southwester,
while
killing
those
DS
messing
with
the
network,
all
that
stuff
the
stuff
the
test
article
there's
effectively
no
other
way
to
demonstrate
that
the
OSD
works.
B
D
A
E
D
That's
that's
what
we
do
now.
The
the
PR
integration
Suites
are
triggered
automatically
they're
triggered
by
humans
when
at
least
I'm,
assuming
that's
how
a
few
and
y'all
still
do
it.
But
you
sort
of
great
gather
up
several
PRS
put
them
into
a
branch
and
then
kick
off
the
tests
that
will
help
them
the
next
day.
It's
a
bit.
It
takes
so
long
to
run
they're
doing
one
of
matically
ism.
A
D
A
D
Though,
in
one
case
it
we
built
from
source.
In
the
other
case,
it
would
be
a
package
I
think
it
actually
makes
more
sensitive
thing.
I
just
described
it
should
actually
just
push
it.
I
mean
there's
no
reason
why
it
couldn't
work
like
that
right,
Jenkins
could
push
it
to
the
CIA
and
then
simply
pull
until
the
packages
built.
That.
A
D
D
C
D
A
A
C
C
Another
thing
is
its
extra
parts.
Is
another
concept
introduced
there
to
the
sister
part?
Do
you
support
it
committed
that
allows
to
reuse
the
tile
of
the
buffer
when
rigging
with
Cardinal
interface?
It's
quite
likely.
Well,
it's
absolution
for
big
chunks.
That
Cardinal
will
give
you
less
than
you,
and
any
requested
before
that
word
before.
C
C
C
This
is
because
the
see
the
spirit
of
the
interfaces
that
T
star,
that
Network
stack
is
responsible
for
giving
you
memory
and
not
only
location,
but
even
the
chunk
size.
That's
the
reason
why
why
sister
has
input
stream
console
input
stream
read
all
of
all
of
them
ignore
the
sizes
the
network
stack
is
responsible
for
for
determining
them.
E
C
E
E
C
Bleached,
the
last
thing
I
said
it
was
that
read
exactly
it
won't
be
used
anymore
for
reading
big
trucks,
I
believe
it's
mostly
for
dealing
with
headers
that
in
situations
where
you
would
normally,
even
if
you
will
delete
with
scatter
gutter,
you
would
have
made
mem
copy
to
have
a
contiguous
space.
That's
the
that's!
The
idea
behind
route,
exactly
contiguous,
contiguous
one
single
contiguous
chunk
of
memory
that
can
be
easily
interpreted
as
a
packet
struct,
for
instance,
as
rather
just
a
renter
prett
cast
to
a
packet,
struct
pointer,
I,
believe
that's
the
intention
behind
it.
C
C
Those
trunks
won't
be
read
with
Derek
exactly
they.
Those
trunks
are
big
using
using
big
using
clip.
Exactly
would
assume
that
all
that
they
must
be
in
a
form
of
one
contiguous
butter.
Even
if
your
network
stock
prefer
to
use
cutter
cutter
read
exactly
is
most
before
reading.
Headers
is
for
reading
short
things
that
you
must
be
confused,
because
you
want
to
reinterpret
cut
them
to
a
pointer
to
construct
like
we
have
with.
E
C
E
C
E
E
C
The
problem
I
have
at
the
moment
is
using
scatter
got
payment
requirement
for
a
very
big
trunks.
Terminal
gives
me
memory
in
chunks
that
are
not
aligned
as
well.
It's
fully
expected.
The
problem
is
that
the
temporary
author
of
species
doesn't
doesn't
provide
a
method
for
verifying
whether
two
chunks,
whether
two
instances
of
the
somewhere
are
connected,
are
are
spanning
same
memory,
the
same
the
same
single
chunk
acquired
from
Mallik,
or
not
that
very
contrary
to
the
buffered
pointer,
where
we
had
access
to
their
to
the
Buffalo
till
I.
B
D
Well,
I
swear
sorry
it's
using
if
you
tried
store
because
that
happen
under
my
patch
there
was
a
change
that
just
added
a
an
interface
wrapper
around
science
or
occult
future
I
store.
It
doesn't
change
anything
semantics.
It's
just
a
name.
B
D
D
The
classic
OSD
has
this
thing
where
it
creates
a
UNIX
domain,
socket
in
a
designated
directory
and
you
can
send
it
commands
and
get
information
back
and
one
of
the
commands
and
you
can
set
of
commands
that
are
like
give
me
the
set
of
outstanding
iOS
right,
because
if
something
gets
stuck,
you
want
to
go
find
out
why
basic
stuff?
This
will
be
vastly
worse,
because
if
something
becomes
duck
we
won't
even
have
a
batteries,
though
I'm
trying
to
build
that
stuff
in
that's
the
first
class
thing.
Hence
the
blockers.
D
D
We
may
well
do
that,
but
that
particular
future
doesn't
really
ever
have
errors,
which
is
actually
bad,
because
there
are
a
few
cases
where
these
things
can
short-circuit
that
that
haven't
been
implemented.
Yet
specifically,
if
you're
waiting
on
a
PG
to
come
into
existence
and
a
map
shows
up
that
says
you're
no
longer
back
to
this
OA
C
at
all
anymore.
D
There's
needs
to
be
a
path
where
you
notice
that
and
drop
the
IO,
but
we
haven't
done
that
yet
so
I
figure
we'll
do
that
with
the
next
patch
or
like
whoever
implements
that
part.
We'll
need
a
rational
way
to
thread
that
step
through
and
that'll,
be
the
right
time
to
do.
The
error
handling,
okay,.
D
That
that
may
well
be
what
we
do,
but
actually
for
that
one.
It's
probably
going
to
be
the
case
that
the
future
that's
in
it
will
be
the
wrapper
type
itself,
because
the
only
purpose
for
that
thing
is
so
that
when
ops
are
doing
are
blocking
and
one
of
these
things,
they
don't
have
a
choice,
but
to
do
the
correct
order
of
registering
the
blocker
and
on
registering
it.
Otherwise,
someone
might
forget
there.
D
B
D
Right,
private,
I'm,
sorry,
yeah,
I,
promise,
traitors,
call
the
private,
oh
I,
can't
because
it's
a
reserved
word.
That's
that's
why
I
didn't
call
a
private
okay,
it's
it's!
It's
an
arbitrary,
it's
an
arbitrary
pointer
that
the
user
of
this
of
the
connection
can
use
to
associate
state
with
it.
In
this
case,
what
the
OSD
is
doing
is
it's
for
every
connection
that
comes
in
it's
associating
to
blocking
lists,
one
for
peering
IO
and
the
other
for
client,
I.
D
D
I
could
add
like
more
for
a
around
it,
but
I
think
usage
is
probably
like
if
you
notice
the
inside
of
OSD,
slash,
there's
a
little
helper
that
just
always
pulls
out
an
OSD
connection.
Proof
with
those
two
types
on.
B
B
B
D
That's
not
so
bad
yeah.
We.
B
D
Stopped
in
could
decode,
okay,
that's
a
fair
point:
it
that
might
or
might
not
be
worth
addressing
on
this
pure
because
it's
actually
true
for
almost
every
piece
of
code
in
crimson,
actually
I
didn't
see
no
except
any
work.
We
could
chef.
D
B
D
A
A
A
D
So
it's
it's,
though,
there
are
two
basic
ways
of
doing
this.
You
can
either
embed
to
the
handling
for
each
step
into
the
relevant
piece
of
PG
or
OSD
code
depending
or
you
can
yank
it
out
and
force
there
to
be
interfaces
from
OSD
and
PG
into
this
extra
class
that
now
everyone
has
to
read
right.
So,
yes,
I
actually
claim
that
this
is
less
bad.
D
The
reason
is
because
we
always
spent
a
lot
of
time
explaining
to
people
the
code
flow
as
you
go
through
OSD,
because
you
have
to
hop
you
it's
like
a
mess
dispatch.
Then
it
goes
into
the
thing
where
it
finds
the
PG
and
there
that
pathway
is
actually
quite
complicated.
Then
it
needs
to
go
through
two
different
queues
to
get
to
the
PG,
at
which
point
there's
a
whole
sequence
of
blocking
queues.
It
needs
to
go
through
that
were
in
different
places
like
physically
and
PTH.
D
Then
it
goes
into
replicated
PG
and
there
are
different
locks
that
need
to
take
there
on
the
object
context,
and
also
the
pathway
through
cache
sharing
is
really
very
hard
to
read.
So
my
claim
is
that
doing
it.
This
way
is
better
because
it
forces
PG
be
in
a
sense,
ambivalent,
about
how
the
interfaces
are
being
used.
It
provides
ways
for
the
iOS
to
agree
on
ordering,
but
it's
this
file
that
determines
how
an
IO
actually
goes
through.
D
Most
of
the
code
will
still
be
in
PG,
of
course,
but
because
the
code
that
actually
matters
really
is
there
but
you'll
be
able
look
at
this
file
and
say:
okay,
these
are
the
ten
steps
it
needs
to
go
through.
D
It's
a
different
approach.
I
agree.
It
does
require
you
to
look
at
a
new
file
it,
for
instance,
I
just
declared
it
to
be
a
friend
of
PG,
because
there's
no
there's
no
meaningful
interface
boundary
there
right.
That's
not
that's,
not
a
win
here
at
all.
It's
just
that
we
get
to
define
the
state
or
at
I/o
in
one
place,
and
we
that
met
is
the
state
that
carries
through
all
of
its
steps
and
we
get
to
define
the
order
in
which
it
moves
between
pipeline
stages.
D
It's
less
clear
for
peering,
because
the
pipeline
is
pretty
short,
but
I
feel
that
it
is
more
clear
for
the
way
I
did
client
I/o.
If
you
want
to
look
at
that,
that
file
and
I
like
in
the
future
I
would
expect
to
pull
out
even
the
part
where
it
grabs
the
object,
contacts,
locks
and
any
future
blocking.
It
needs
to
do
below
that.
If
we
ever
do
cache
sharing
things
of
that
nature
would
also
get
surface.
D
D
That's
work:
it's
fuzzy
like
this
I'm,
not
saying
it
should
happen.
This
way,
I'm
saying
that
all
the
big
important
blocking
states
should
be
surfaced
up
where
they're
easy
to
find
that's
all,
but
there
were,
there
will
probably
be
internal
blocking
states
inside
of
PG
back-end
and
I
am
uncertain
about
that.
It
made
more
sense
to
wrap
that
up
as
I'm
just
blocking
on
this
thing.
Pg
back-end
is
doing,
or
it
might
makes
a
I'm
open
suggestions.
D
B
D
D
No
claim
that
this
is
the
best
way
of
doing
it.
I
tried
to
make
it
well.
I
I
introduced
the
pipe
of
this
pipeline
concept,
where
you
have
a
handle
that
is
attached
to
a
pipeline
stage,
and
you
enter
the
next
pipeline
stage
to
allow
a
new
op
to
come
in
to
the
previous
one.
You
get
sort
of
a
logical
progression
of
blocks
if
you
will,
but
with
the
benefit
of
concurrency.
Essentially,
it's
Crimson's
version
of
a
sequence
of
work
use,
except
with
no
work,
use,
threads
or
blocking
of
any
kind.
D
It
won't
actually
do
any
blocking
if
there
isn't
another
out
there,
but
it
means,
for
instance,
that
if
we
have
an
OP
waiting
on
our
OSD
map,
everything
behind
it
will
wait.
They
won't
skip
the
line
so
that
kind
of
surfaces
as
a
new
future
that
gets
inserted
between
some
of
the
steps
which
I
think
makes
it
easier
to
read
relatively
speaking
for
now,
I.
E
I
think
that
the
POSIX
target
is
a
very
specific
hedge.
So
if
we
can
do
it
cleaner
and
now
intrusive,
maybe
maybe
I
will
make
sure
if
the
benefits.
So
so
that's
why
I'm
also
working
on
the
perf
chromosome
messenger
to
get
better
understanding
of
the
performance,
because
I
need
to
add
at
the
latency
sampling,
because
I
need
to
under
I
need
to
know
the
message
that
each
message
latency
before
that
I
need
to
send
each
message.
E
One-By-One,
depth,
equals
1/2
to
know
the
latency
of
the
to
send
a
message,
but,
but
we
simply
messenger
I.
Don't
need
to
do
that
anymore
and
I
also
need
to
add
timer
to
limit
the
running
time
of
the
perf
and
add
per
second
report.
Because
for
the
align
the
memory
allocation,
it
seems
that
it
is
the
performance
very
unstable,
even
across
different
tests,
so
so
I
think
per
second.
The
report
is
better
for
that
and
I
also
review
Sams
Sams
patch
and
I.
E
D
B
B
C
There
will
be
huge
difference
or
between
those,
because
for
the
POSIX
tack
idea,
the
main
idea
is
to
keep
the
interfaces
of
input
stream
clean
to
preserve
the
abstraction
sister
Fox
already
made,
I
mean
to
be
able
I
mean
to
have
the
same.
The
to
not
and
force
users
to
read
differ
at
the
level
of
the
interface
to
read
differently
for
DP
DK
than
they
are
reading
for
kazakh
stock.
That's
the
main
goal
of
the
input
buffer
factory
keep
the
interpret
the
abstraction.
The
current
interfaces
providing
I
still.
C
E
C
B
A
Okay,
Sam
I
just
have
a
really
quick
question
and
regarding
to
the
private
thing
people,
actually
we
tried
to
try
to
add
the
replicated
interface
from
classical
messenger
to
add
the
character
of
a
private
thing,
but
I
stopped
him
because
I
I
was
I
was
concerned
that
we
will
open
the
door
for
the
Supreme
of
dependency.
But
I
found
that
you're,
the
the
private
is
the
unique
pointer
so
I
just
wanted
to
learn
to
to
check
with
you.
Will
we
to
to
make
sure
we
won't
abuse
this
interface
for
for
at
a
pointer
to
the.
D
A
D
A
C
D
A
D
Don't
expect
that
interface
to
ever
have
anything
else
in
that
interface,
no
optic
connection
should
always
be
totally
empty.
In
fact,
if
I
I
actually
looked,
I
assumed
that
there
was
a
deletable
interface
already
somewhere
in
the
center
of
library,
but
sadly
there
is
not.
This
was
the
only
way
I
was
able
to
come
up
with
to
have
a
void
pointer.
That
I
could
actually
delete
if
there's
a
better
way
that
we.
D
D
D
I
definitely
know
I
claim
that
this
is
this
is
such
a
bit
obvious?
We
definitely
do
that.
The
interface
will
always
remain
empty,
because
the
only
reason
why
it's
there
is
so
that
we
could
delete
it,
but
the
implementing
thing
we'll
just
have
whatever
stuff
the
OSD
wants
to
associate
with
a
connection
whatever
that
happens,
to
be
classically,
used
to
associate
some
some
or
does
associate
some
sorry.
A
D
Exactly
session
like
information,
so
that's
that's
kind
of
like
what
we're
doing,
but
we
don't
have
staple
sessions
here.
So
it's
not
really
necessary.
D
But
that's
literally
all
at
us
like,
if
there's
a
more
like
correct
way
to
do
that,
I'd
rather
do
it
that
way,
I
just
don't
know
of
one
like
there
isn't
an
obvious
nothing
stood
out
and
announced
itself
what
I,
Google
or
kind
of
an
oversight
in
Stanford
library.
It
would
be
nice
if
you
didn't
just
have
to
enter
that
one
of
these
surfaces
to
do
that.
B
B
E
D
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
D
Well,
queue
us
is
different.
Right
rattling
is
throttling
everything
we're
just
throttling
the
total
number
of
messages
on
I've
caught
a
connection,
but
the
OSD
might
want
to
be
like
actually
I
kind
of
just
don't
want
this
client
I.
Just
don't
want
to
see
any
messages
for
this
client
for
a
while.
I
I
need
to
do
weather
work,
so
just
like
stop.
D
A
B
B
E
C
So
we
don't
know
and
presses
I
press
speaking
technically,
not
entirely
defined
the
level
of
of
messenger.
That's
the
problem,
the
requirements,
whether
about
alignment
about
number
of
chunks
using
single
trunk
using
few
chunks
using
huge
number
of
chunks,
can
be
known
only
at
the
layer
of
off
starkness
above
the
driver
that
will
be
underneath
the
sister
yes.
C
E
C
C
C
E
C
That's
the
that's
the
way.
That's
the
idea
currently
was
changed
from
the
Patras
for,
for
it
said
for
crimson
already
changed
already.
Plane
already
have
already
have
changed
their
way.
How
we
read
data
segment
to
read
exactly
is
used
at
the
moment.
Only
on
three
places
for
reading
epilogue
of
reading
preamble
theft,
banner
and
epilogue
nothing
more.
All
of
all
of
those
guys
are
around
are
smaller
than
done.
C
E
B
E
C
C
All
it
does
is
delegate
for
some
network
stacks
delegate
the
responsibility
for
acquiring
memory
to
application,
but
only
for
those
network
stacks
that
are
flexible
enough,
like
possib
stacks.
If
a
positive
network
stacking
in
a
particular
Network
stack
is
less
flexible,
just
won't
use
the
ILP.
Ifb
is
optional.
C
B
E
C
B
C
This
is
true
the
states
even
with
the
a
io
with
the
current,
a
I/o
interface.
This
uses
that
hug,
basically
the
inspection
of
the
of
the
completion
queue
that
is
exposed
to
user
space,
it's
performed
by
sister,
without
any
interacting
with
Cardinal
at
the
level
of
Cisco
internal.
That's
all
the
some
memory
to
user
space
and
sister
makes
use
of
it
by
just
going
through
Delhi
through
the
queue
on
its
own,
but.
C
C
Okay,
but
but
prefetching
well,
it's
just
basically
doing
more
work
just
for
this,
just
because
the
fiscal
interface
is
so
weak
it's
over,
because
because
it's
so
outdated
when
it
was
designed,
the
cost
fiscal
was
in.
What
difference
between
between
speed
of
CPU
and
speed
up
storage
was
so
huge
that
nobody
was
taking
care
about.
Such
details
like
like
mouth
switch
and
it'll.
C
Honest
I
would
love
to
feel
the
prefetching
cut
and
entirely,
and
our
urine
makes
some
promises
in
that
product.
If
it's
performant
enough,
if
it
lowers
the
cost
of
of
exchanging
some
data
with
canna
communicating
with
kernel
enough,
then
we
don't
mean
we
won't
need
to
do.
We
don't
need.
We
want
me
to
do
the
mem
copied
right
and
imposed
by
profit.
We
won't
need
to
do
profiting
at
all
yeah.
B
E
C
C
Definitely
we
don't
need
that
at
the
level
of
off
sister
it
if
it
will
be
at
the
level
of
client
at
the
level
of
Crimson
OSD.
So
the
part
for
the
part
of
IBF
are
four
sisters.
Free
of
of
that
and
I
believe
that
criminal
is
D
will
be
released
in
maybe
two
years
from
now
and
post
I
am
I'm
just
a
curating.
Maybe
we
will
have
higher
during
widely
available
at
the
time.
C
C
Also
in
the
Barcelona
I've
also
had
also
attack
with
with
Leah
drama,
the
guy
behind
k
RVD.
Our
current
developer
and
I
asked
about
portability
of
a
rink,
and
he
responded.
It's
quite
good.
The
tap
system,
basically
is
nicely
is
delighted
from
the
other
Cardinal.
So
it's
more
like
just
adding
like
it's
just
like
a
transplantation,
you
don't
need
to
mess
with
other
Cardinal
subsystems
to
get
back
water.
C
E
E
C
E
E
C
E
C
E
C
C
C
That's
the
if
responsible
for
rectifying
battery,
as
you
can
see,
the
batteries
continues.
It's
perfectly
fine,
yeah
it's
if
it's
fragmented,
but
depending
well
on
the
on
the
fact
on
the
uncouple
of
a
few
facts,
a
few
factors
like
whether
you
are
doing
Rick,
the
IO
or
not.
How
big
you
are,
how
big
your
kernel,
vector,
vector
io,
can
be
yeah.
B
C
E
C
It's
we
are
marking
a
segment
that
we
know
that
that
always
the
implementations
are
usually
put
with
put
to
storage
device
and
for
storage
device
as
a
role
of
as
a
rule
of
thumb,
it's
usually
good
to
have
to
have
it
aligned
to
4k,
but
well,
it's
just
a
hint,
it's
very,
very
far
away
from
the
real
complexity
of
memory
requirement
imposed
by
particular
the
particular
device.
Yes
well.
C
Justic
is
very
good,
a
very
good
example
of
that
and,
as
offers
money
drive
drivers
for
block,
there
is
implementation,
of
course,
at
the
top
of
a
I/o,
the
most
domain
Linux
a
I/o,
the
most
dominant
one,
the
defragment
comes
from
it
came
from
it.
However,
there
is
also
implementation
and
based
on
SPD
k.
There
is
also
an
implementation
on
top
of
female
and.
E
What
I
really
mean
is
that
in
the
the
crimson,
messenger
is
not
very
different
from
the
I
think
messenger.
So
if
crimson
messenger
totally
ignores
the
hint
of
the
alignment
of
data
segment,
it
just
read
as
quickly
as
possible
and
ignore
the
alignment
requirement
right
for
right
acceptance.
So
why
not
a
single
messenger
ignore
that
because
they
basically
came
I.
Think.
C
C
It
offers
you
very
flexible
interface
in
case
of
POSIX
tag.
User
is
responsible
for
providing
for
providing
memory,
so
changing
malloc
with
POSIX
man
underscore
mem
aligned,
it's
not
a
big
deal,
but
the
situation
changed
entirely
in
case
of
in
case
yes,
but
even
at
higher
level.
In
the
case
of
sister
networking
and
sister
networking
actually
driven
by
db/decade,
all
those
methods
ignore
doesn't
offer
you
any
pointer.
Taking
variant
memory
is
allocated
by
stack
and
most
of
even
even
locks
are
possibility,
even
even
ignores
me
nurse.
C
E
C
C
Yes,
that's
the
idea
behind
behind
the
the
input
buffer
factor.
It's
not
obligatory
for
any
stock
to
be
used.
If,
if
an
implementation
of
the
of
the
end
of
the
T
star
interfaces
know
that
it's
no
it's
its
memory
management
is
flexible,
it
can
take.
It
can
make
use
of
the
of
the
provided
factory
instance
so,
for
instance,
to
make
alignment
to
specify
chunks
the
types
of
chunks
for
interaction
with
network
with
network
device.
Things
like
that,
but
definitely
it's
not
it's
not
narrow
down.
Only
to
the
that
I
believe
could
be
nice.
C
C
B
C
C
E
C
E
C
Yep
it
can,
where
it
might
be.
It
might
be
that
that
some,
if
somebody
understand
this
requirement,
he
would
do
a
lot
a
lot
of
extra
work
just
to
satisfy
the
requirement.
Fatiha
extra
will
not
even
this
extra
we've
even
prohibiting
for
efficient
consumption
by
some
by
some
storage
devices
like
a
spaces
actually
well,
we
should
rename
Bob
in
sister
and
also
in
my
messenger,
I
think.
Yes,
it's
a
thing.
It's
just
a
hint.
C
C
C
E
C
C
Actually,
each
each
temporal
buffer
instance
when,
when
tuning
to
buffer
pointer
God's,
gets
it
on
it's
on
independent
Buffalo,
which
means
that
the
optimization
here
won't
take
place
and
actually
that
this
is
a.
There
is
a
very
good
reason
for
our
implementation
of
of
the
adapter
between
buffer
row
and
temporary
buffer
of
cysts
to
behave
the
right
it's
because
because
the
temporary
buffer
of
sister
doesn't
doesn't
offer
you
any
interface
to
very
to
check
whether
to
buffer.
C
Whether
two
instances
are
basically
clowns
are
spanning
on
the
same
physical
memory:
okay,
yeah,
that's
that's
unhandy
well,
I
prefer
to
not
introduce
don't
touch
the
temporary
buffer,
and
fortunately
there
is.
There
is
a
way
to
avoid
doing
that.
A
comment
in
DPR
but
I
want
to
move
the
factory
at
the
level
of
socket.