lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 000 of 35] Refactor block layer to improve support for stacked devices.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:52:35AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
>
> Tejun> Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> NeilBrown wrote:
> >>> To achieve this, the "for_each" macros are now somewhat more complex.
> >>> For example, rq_for_each_segment is:
> >>>
> >>> #define bio_for_each_segment_offset(bv, bio, _i, offs, _size) \
> >>> for (_i.i = 0, _i.offset = (bio)->bi_offset + offs, \
> >>> _i.size = min_t(int, _size, (bio)->bi_size - offs); \
> >>> _i.i < (bio)->bi_vcnt && _i.size > 0; \
> >>> _i.i++) \
> >>> if (bv = *bio_iovec_idx((bio), _i.i), \
> >>> bv.bv_offset += _i.offset, \
> >>> bv.bv_len <= _i.offset \
> >>> ? (_i.offset -= bv.bv_len, 0) \
> >>> : (bv.bv_len -= _i.offset, \
> >>> _i.offset = 0, \
> >>> bv.bv_len < _i.size \
> >>> ? (_i.size -= bv.bv_len, 1) \
> >>> : (bv.bv_len = _i.size, \
> >>> _i.size = 0, \
> >>> bv.bv_len > 0)))
> >>>
> >>> #define bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, __i) \
> >>> bio_for_each_segment_offset(bv, bio, __i, 0, (bio)->bi_size)
> >>>
> >>> It does some with some explanatory text in a comment, but it is still
> >>> a bit daunting. Any suggestions on making this more approachable
> >>> would be very welcome.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, I hesitate to state the obvious, but how about:
> >>
> >> #define bio_for_each_segment_offset(bv, bio, _i, offs, _size) \
> >> for (bio_iterator_init(&_i, ...); bio_iterator_cont(&_i, ...);
> >> bio_iterator_advance(&_i, ...)) \
> >> if (bio_iterator_want_segment(&_i, ...))
> >>
> >> While this doesn't remove the complexity, at least it's readable.
>
> Tejun> Violently seconded.
>
> How about it be made into a real function instead? I was reading
> through the patch, but got timed out yesterday, so take this with a
> grain of salt.
>
> I thought I saw a couple of macros defined to use this macro yet
> again. Which I figured might be a problem is the passed in variables
> get munged.
>
> In any case, why does something so complicated need to be a macro, why
> not a function instead?

I agree and actually wrote about the same opinion in one of the
replies. It might even be benefitial performance-wise due to smaller
cache foot print.

Thanks.

--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-01 18:03    [W:0.118 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site