[v3,08/12] service: remove redundant code
Checks
Commit Message
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
> 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
<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
> -----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
>
@@ -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;