[v3,08/12] service: remove redundant code
diff mbox series

Message ID 1584407863-774-9-git-send-email-phil.yang@arm.com
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers show
Series
  • generic rte atomic APIs deprecate proposal
Related show

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/Intel-compilation fail Compilation issues
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

Phil Yang March 17, 2020, 1:17 a.m. UTC
The service id validation is verified in the calling function, remove
the redundant code inside the service_update function.

Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept")
Cc: Stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
---
 lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 31 ++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

Comments

Van Haaren, Harry April 3, 2020, 11:58 a.m. UTC | #1
> From: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:18 AM
> To: thomas@monjalon.net; Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>;
> Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
> stephen@networkplumber.org; maxime.coquelin@redhat.com; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com; jerinj@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com;
> Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com; gavin.hu@arm.com; ruifeng.wang@arm.com;
> joyce.kong@arm.com; nd@arm.com; Stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH v3 08/12] service: remove redundant code
> 
> The service id validation is verified in the calling function, remove
> the redundant code inside the service_update function.
> 
> Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept")
> Cc: Stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>


Same comment as patch 7/12, is this really a "Fix"? This functionality
is not "broken" in  the current code? And is there value in porting
to stable? I'd see this as unnecessary churn.

As before, it is a valid cleanup (thanks), and I'd like to take it for
new DPDK releases.

Happy to Ack without Fixes or Cc Stable, if that's acceptable to you?



> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 31 ++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> index 2117726..557b5a9 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> @@ -552,21 +552,10 @@ rte_service_start_with_defaults(void)
>  }
> 
>  static int32_t
> -service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service, uint32_t lcore,
> +service_update(uint32_t sid, uint32_t lcore,
>  		uint32_t *set, uint32_t *enabled)
>  {
> -	uint32_t i;
> -	int32_t sid = -1;
> -
> -	for (i = 0; i < RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX; i++) {
> -		if ((struct rte_service_spec *)&rte_services[i] == service &&
> -				service_valid(i)) {
> -			sid = i;
> -			break;
> -		}
> -	}
> -
> -	if (sid == -1 || lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> +	if (lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> 
>  	if (!lcore_states[lcore].is_service_core)
> @@ -598,19 +587,23 @@ service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service,
> uint32_t lcore,
>  int32_t
>  rte_service_map_lcore_set(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore, uint32_t enabled)
>  {
> -	struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> -	SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> +	/* validate ID, or return error value */
> +	if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>  	uint32_t on = enabled > 0;
> -	return service_update(&s->spec, lcore, &on, 0);
> +	return service_update(id, lcore, &on, 0);
>  }
> 
>  int32_t
>  rte_service_map_lcore_get(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore)
>  {
> -	struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> -	SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> +	/* validate ID, or return error value */
> +	if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>  	uint32_t enabled;
> -	int ret = service_update(&s->spec, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> +	int ret = service_update(id, lcore, 0, &enabled);
>  	if (ret == 0)
>  		return enabled;
>  	return ret;
> --
> 2.7.4
Honnappa Nagarahalli April 5, 2020, 6:35 p.m. UTC | #2
<snip>

> >
> > The service id validation is verified in the calling function, remove
> > the redundant code inside the service_update function.
> >
> > Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept")
> > Cc: Stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> 
> 
> Same comment as patch 7/12, is this really a "Fix"? This functionality is not
> "broken" in  the current code? And is there value in porting to stable? I'd see
> this as unnecessary churn.
> 
> As before, it is a valid cleanup (thanks), and I'd like to take it for new DPDK
> releases.
> 
> Happy to Ack without Fixes or Cc Stable, if that's acceptable to you?
Agreed.

> 
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 31
> > ++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > index 2117726..557b5a9 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > @@ -552,21 +552,10 @@ rte_service_start_with_defaults(void)
> >  }
> >
> >  static int32_t
> > -service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service, uint32_t lcore,
> > +service_update(uint32_t sid, uint32_t lcore,
> >  		uint32_t *set, uint32_t *enabled)
'set' parameter does not need be passed by reference, pass by value is enough.

> >  {
> > -	uint32_t i;
> > -	int32_t sid = -1;
> > -
> > -	for (i = 0; i < RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX; i++) {
> > -		if ((struct rte_service_spec *)&rte_services[i] == service &&
> > -				service_valid(i)) {
> > -			sid = i;
> > -			break;
> > -		}
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	if (sid == -1 || lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > +	if (lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
The validations look somewhat inconsistent in service_update function, we are validating some parameters and not some.
Suggest bringing the validation of the service id also into this function and remove it from the calling functions.

> >
> >  	if (!lcore_states[lcore].is_service_core)
> > @@ -598,19 +587,23 @@ service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service,
> > uint32_t lcore,  int32_t  rte_service_map_lcore_set(uint32_t id,
> > uint32_t lcore, uint32_t enabled)  {
> > -	struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > -	SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > +	/* validate ID, or return error value */
> > +	if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >  	uint32_t on = enabled > 0;
We do not need the above line. 'enabled' can be passed directly to 'service_update'.

> > -	return service_update(&s->spec, lcore, &on, 0);
> > +	return service_update(id, lcore, &on, 0);
> >  }
> >
> >  int32_t
> >  rte_service_map_lcore_get(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore)  {
> > -	struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > -	SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > +	/* validate ID, or return error value */
> > +	if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >  	uint32_t enabled;
> > -	int ret = service_update(&s->spec, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> > +	int ret = service_update(id, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> >  	if (ret == 0)
> >  		return enabled;
> >  	return ret;
> > --
> > 2.7.4
Phil Yang April 8, 2020, 10:15 a.m. UTC | #3
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 2:35 AM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; Phil Yang
> <Phil.Yang@arm.com>; thomas@monjalon.net; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; stephen@networkplumber.org;
> maxime.coquelin@redhat.com; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com; jerinj@marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu@arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong@arm.com>; nd
> <nd@arm.com>; Stable@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 08/12] service: remove redundant code
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > >
> > > The service id validation is verified in the calling function, remove
> > > the redundant code inside the service_update function.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept")
> > > Cc: Stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>
> >
> >
> > Same comment as patch 7/12, is this really a "Fix"? This functionality is not
> > "broken" in  the current code? And is there value in porting to stable? I'd
> see
> > this as unnecessary churn.
> >
> > As before, it is a valid cleanup (thanks), and I'd like to take it for new DPDK
> > releases.
> >
> > Happy to Ack without Fixes or Cc Stable, if that's acceptable to you?
> Agreed.

Agreed. 

> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > >  lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 31
> > > ++++++++++++-------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > index 2117726..557b5a9 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > @@ -552,21 +552,10 @@ rte_service_start_with_defaults(void)
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static int32_t
> > > -service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service, uint32_t lcore,
> > > +service_update(uint32_t sid, uint32_t lcore,
> > >  uint32_t *set, uint32_t *enabled)
> 'set' parameter does not need be passed by reference, pass by value is
> enough.
Agreed.
 
> 
> > >  {
> > > -uint32_t i;
> > > -int32_t sid = -1;
> > > -
> > > -for (i = 0; i < RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX; i++) {
> > > -if ((struct rte_service_spec *)&rte_services[i] == service &&
> > > -service_valid(i)) {
> > > -sid = i;
> > > -break;
> > > -}
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > -if (sid == -1 || lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > > +if (lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > >  return -EINVAL;
> The validations look somewhat inconsistent in service_update function, we
> are validating some parameters and not some.
> Suggest bringing the validation of the service id also into this function and
> remove it from the calling functions.
Agreed. I will update it in the next version.

> 
> > >
> > >  if (!lcore_states[lcore].is_service_core)
> > > @@ -598,19 +587,23 @@ service_update(struct rte_service_spec
> *service,
> > > uint32_t lcore,  int32_t  rte_service_map_lcore_set(uint32_t id,
> > > uint32_t lcore, uint32_t enabled)  {
> > > -struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > > -SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > > +/* validate ID, or return error value */
> > > +if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > > +return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > >  uint32_t on = enabled > 0;
> We do not need the above line. 'enabled' can be passed directly to
> 'service_update'.
Agreed.

> 
> > > -return service_update(&s->spec, lcore, &on, 0);
> > > +return service_update(id, lcore, &on, 0);
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  int32_t
> > >  rte_service_map_lcore_get(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore)  {
> > > -struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > > -SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > > +/* validate ID, or return error value */
> > > +if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > > +return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > >  uint32_t enabled;
> > > -int ret = service_update(&s->spec, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> > > +int ret = service_update(id, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> > >  if (ret == 0)
> > >  return enabled;
> > >  return ret;
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
>

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
index 2117726..557b5a9 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
@@ -552,21 +552,10 @@  rte_service_start_with_defaults(void)
 }
 
 static int32_t
-service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service, uint32_t lcore,
+service_update(uint32_t sid, uint32_t lcore,
 		uint32_t *set, uint32_t *enabled)
 {
-	uint32_t i;
-	int32_t sid = -1;
-
-	for (i = 0; i < RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX; i++) {
-		if ((struct rte_service_spec *)&rte_services[i] == service &&
-				service_valid(i)) {
-			sid = i;
-			break;
-		}
-	}
-
-	if (sid == -1 || lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
+	if (lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	if (!lcore_states[lcore].is_service_core)
@@ -598,19 +587,23 @@  service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service, uint32_t lcore,
 int32_t
 rte_service_map_lcore_set(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore, uint32_t enabled)
 {
-	struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
-	SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
+	/* validate ID, or return error value */
+	if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	uint32_t on = enabled > 0;
-	return service_update(&s->spec, lcore, &on, 0);
+	return service_update(id, lcore, &on, 0);
 }
 
 int32_t
 rte_service_map_lcore_get(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore)
 {
-	struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
-	SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
+	/* validate ID, or return error value */
+	if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	uint32_t enabled;
-	int ret = service_update(&s->spec, lcore, 0, &enabled);
+	int ret = service_update(id, lcore, 0, &enabled);
 	if (ret == 0)
 		return enabled;
 	return ret;