lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220415170523.GB97823@anparri> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 19:05:23 +0200 From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> To: "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com> Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Refactor the ring-buffer iterator functions On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 04:44:50PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote: > From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.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 > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists