[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 05/13] xen/pvcalls: implement bind command

>> This all looks very similar to previous patches. Can it be factored out?
> You are right that the pattern is the same for all commands:
> - get a request
> - fill the request
> - possibly do something else
> - wait
> however each request is different, the struct and fields are different.
> There are spin_lock and spin_unlock calls intermingled. I am not sure I
> can factor out much of this. Maybe I could create a static inline or
> macro as a syntactic sugar to replace the wait call, but that's pretty
> much it I think.

Maybe you could factor out common fragments, not necessarily the whole
thing at once?

For example,

static inline int get_request(*bedata, int *req_id)

*req_id = bedata->ring.req_prod_pvt & (RING_SIZE(&bedata->ring) - 1);
if (RING_FULL(&bedata->ring) ||
READ_ONCE(bedata->rsp[*req_id].req_id) != PVCALLS_INVALID_ID) {
return -EAGAIN;
return 0;

(or some such)

>> Also, you've used wait_event_interruptible in socket() implementation. Why not
>> here (and connect())?
> My intention was to use wait_event to wait for replies everywhere but I
> missed some of them in the conversion (I used to use
> wait_event_interruptible in early versions of the code).
> The reason to use wait_event is that it makes it easier to handle the
> rsp slot in bedata (bedata->rsp[req_id]): in case of EINTR the response
> in bedata->rsp would not be cleared by anybody. If we use wait_event
> there is no such problem, and the backend could still return EINTR and
> we would handle it just fine as any other responses.

I was actually wondering about this myself when I was looking at
socket() but then I somehow convinced myself (incorrectly!) that it was OK.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 16:43    [W:0.055 / U:10.116 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site