Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   "Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
To:     "'Matthew Wilcox'" <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-cifsd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, <smfrench@gmail.com>,
        <senozhatsky@chromium.org>, <hyc.lee@gmail.com>,
        <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, <hch@lst.de>, <hch@infradead.org>,
        <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>, <aurelien.aptel@gmail.com>,
        <aaptel@suse.com>, <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
        <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        "'Sergey Senozhatsky'" <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        "'Steve French'" <stfrench@microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210322221816.GW1719932@casper.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] cifsd: add server handler and tranport layers
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:01:22 +0900
Message-ID: <00d901d71f90$cdfd24f0$69f76ed0$@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AQGKnGOaYF8FWW41Vo1OapoCvoUV0QMoPiJ6Am1CcOcBjsy+tqrwuGGg
Content-Language: ko
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
CMS-TYPE: 101P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <20210322051344.1706-1-namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
        <CGME20210322052204epcas1p1382cadbfe958d156c0ad9f7fcb8532b7@epcas1p1.samsung.com>
        <20210322051344.1706-2-namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
        <20210322221816.GW1719932@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:13:40PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > +#define RESPONSE_BUF(w)		((void *)(w)->response_buf)
> > +#define REQUEST_BUF(w)		((void *)(w)->request_buf)
> 
> Why do you do this obfuscation?
I don't remember exactly, but back then, It looked easier...
> 
> > +#define RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(w)	\
> > +	((void *)((w)->response_buf + (w)->next_smb2_rsp_hdr_off))
> > +#define REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(w)	\
> > +	((void *)((w)->request_buf + (w)->next_smb2_rcv_hdr_off))
> 
> These obfuscations aren't even used; delete them
They are used in many place.
./smb2pdu.c:            *rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            err_rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp_hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    rsp_hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rsp = RESPONSE_BUF_NEXT(work);

./smb2pdu.c:            *req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            rcv_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *req_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    struct smb2_hdr *req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    rcv_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            req = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    req_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:            hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
./smb2pdu.c:    req_hdr = REQUEST_BUF_NEXT(work);
> 
> > +#define RESPONSE_SZ(w)		((w)->response_sz)
> > +
> > +#define INIT_AUX_PAYLOAD(w)	((w)->aux_payload_buf = NULL)
> > +#define HAS_AUX_PAYLOAD(w)	((w)->aux_payload_sz != 0)
> 
> I mean, do you really find it clearer to write:
> 
> 	if (HAS_AUX_PAYLOAD(work))
> than
> 	if (work->aux_payload_sz)
> 
> The unobfuscated version is actually shorter!
Yep, looks better, Will fix it.

Thanks for your review!