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 09:00:31 +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: <20220415070031.GE2961@anparri>
References: <20220413204742.5539-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <20220413204742.5539-7-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <PH0PR21MB302516C5334076716966B7EED7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR21MB302516C5334076716966B7EED7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

> > @@ -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().

Good point.  Will do.

Thanks,
  Andrea