Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Fri, 15 Apr 2022 19:05:23 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Refactor the ring-buffer
 iterator functions
Message-ID: <20220415170523.GB97823@anparri>
References: <20220413204742.5539-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <20220413204742.5539-7-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <PH0PR21MB302516C5334076716966B7EED7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220415070031.GE2961@anparri>
 <20220415162811.GA47513@anparri>
 <PH0PR21MB3025ECBC7D7102B539A7705AD7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR21MB3025ECBC7D7102B539A7705AD7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:44:50PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:28 AM
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 09:00:31AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > > @@ -470,7 +471,6 @@ struct vmpacket_descriptor *hv_pkt_iter_first_raw(struct
> > > > > vmbus_channel *channel)
> > > > >
> > > > >  	return (struct vmpacket_descriptor *)(hv_get_ring_buffer(rbi) + rbi-
> > > > > >priv_read_index);
> > > > >  }
> > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hv_pkt_iter_first_raw);
> > > >
> > > > Does hv_pkt_iter_first_raw() need to be retained at all as a
> > > > separate function?  I think after these changes, the only caller
> > > > is hv_pkt_iter_first(), in which case the code could just go
> > > > inline in hv_pkt_iter_first().  Doing that combining would
> > > > also allow the elimination of the duplicate call to
> > > > hv_pkt_iter_avail().
> > 
> > Back to this, can you clarify what you mean by "the elimination of..."?
> > After moving the function "inline", hv_pkt_iter_avail() would be called
> > in to check for a non-NULL descriptor (in the inline function) and later
> > in the computation of bytes_avail.
> 
> I was thinking something like this:
> 
> bytes_avail = hv_pkt_iter_avail(rbi);
> if (bytes_avail < sizeof(struct vmpacket_descriptor))
> 	return NULL;
> bytes_avail = min(rbi->pkt_buffer_size, bytes_avail);
> 
> desc = (struct vmpacket_descriptor *)(hv_get_ring_buffer(rbi) + rbi->priv_read_index);

Thanks for the clarification, I've applied it.

  Andrea


> And for that matter, hv_pkt_iter_avail() is now only called in one place.
> It's a judgment call whether to keep it as a separate helper function vs.
> inlining it in hv_pkt_iter_first() as well.  I'm OK either way.
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
>