Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net: core: datagram: tidy up copy functions a bit | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:17:18 -0700 |
| |
On 10/13/19 1:01 PM, Vito Caputo wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:30:41PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> >> >> On 10/12/19 4:55 AM, Vito Caputo wrote: >>> Eliminate some verbosity by using min() macro and consolidating some >>> things, also fix inconsistent zero tests (! vs. == 0). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vito Caputo <vcaputo@pengaru.com> >>> --- >>> net/core/datagram.c | 44 ++++++++++++++------------------------------ >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/core/datagram.c b/net/core/datagram.c >>> index 4cc8dc5db2b7..08d403f93952 100644 >>> --- a/net/core/datagram.c >>> +++ b/net/core/datagram.c >>> @@ -413,13 +413,11 @@ static int __skb_datagram_iter(const struct sk_buff *skb, int offset, >>> struct iov_iter *), void *data) >>> { >>> int start = skb_headlen(skb); >>> - int i, copy = start - offset, start_off = offset, n; >>> + int i, copy, start_off = offset, n; >>> struct sk_buff *frag_iter; >>> >>> /* Copy header. */ >>> - if (copy > 0) { >>> - if (copy > len) >>> - copy = len; >>> + if ((copy = min(start - offset, len)) > 0) { >> >> No, we prefer not having this kind of construct anymore. >> >> This refactoring looks unnecessary code churn, making our future backports not >> clean cherry-picks. >> >> Simply making sure this patch does not bring a regression is very time consuming. > > Should I not bother submitting patches for such cleanups? > > I submitted another, more trivial patch, is it also considered unnecessary churn: > > --- > > Author: Vito Caputo <vcaputo@pengaru.com> > Date: Sat Oct 12 17:10:41 2019 -0700 > > net: core: skbuff: skb_checksum_setup() drop err > > Return directly from all switch cases, no point in storing in err. > > Signed-off-by: Vito Caputo <vcaputo@pengaru.com> > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c > index f5f904f46893..c59b68a413b5 100644 > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c > @@ -4888,23 +4888,14 @@ static int skb_checksum_setup_ipv6(struct sk_buff *skb, bool recalculate) > */ > int skb_checksum_setup(struct sk_buff *skb, bool recalculate) > { > - int err; > - > switch (skb->protocol) { > case htons(ETH_P_IP): > - err = skb_checksum_setup_ipv4(skb, recalculate); > - break; > - > + return skb_checksum_setup_ipv4(skb, recalculate); > case htons(ETH_P_IPV6): > - err = skb_checksum_setup_ipv6(skb, recalculate); > - break; > - > + return skb_checksum_setup_ipv6(skb, recalculate); > default: > - err = -EPROTO; > - break; > + return -EPROTO; > } > - > - return err; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(skb_checksum_setup); > > --- > > Asking to calibrate my thresholds to yours, since I was planning to volunteer > some time each evening to reading kernel code and submitting any obvious > cleanups. >
This is not a cleanup.
You prefer seeing the code written the way you did, but that is really a matter of taste.
Think about backports of real bug fixes to stable kernels.
Having these re-writes of code make things less easy for us really. So in general we tend to leave the existing code style.
I already replied to the other patch submission, please read
https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=157099669227635&w=2
| |