[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/5] xen: clean up VPF flags macros
On 09/28/2015 08:22 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 28.09.15 at 07:23, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:On 09/25/2015 05:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:On 25.09.15 at 13:54, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Per-VCPU pause flags in sched.h are defined as bit positions and as values derived from the bit defines. There is only one user of a value which can be easily converted to use a bit number as well.I'm not convinced:--- a/xen/common/domctl.c +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ void getdomaininfo(struct domain *d, structxen_domctl_getdomaininfo *info)info->max_vcpu_id = v->vcpu_id; if ( !test_bit(_VPF_down, &v->pause_flags) ) { - if ( !(v->pause_flags & VPF_blocked) ) + if ( !test_bit(_VPF_blocked, &v->pause_flags) )test_bit() is quite a bit more complex an operation than a simple &, and with (on x86) even constant_test_bit() involving a cast to a pointer to volatile I'm afraid we can't even hope that compilers would produce identical code for both in cases like this one (as that casts limits freedom of the compiler). IOW I'd rather see other test_bit(_VPF_...) uses converted the inverse way (which as a nice but minor side effect would yield slightly smaller source code).What about introducing __test_bit() being a variant which can be reordered by omitting the volatile modifier? I think this would have the same effect.I'm not convinced it always would - the inline function is still more complex than the plain operation. Depends on the way it is done. What about: #define __test_bit(nr, addr) ({ \ if ( bitop_bad_size(addr) ) __bitop_bad_size(); \ (__builtin_constant_p(nr) ? \ !!(*(addr) & ((typeof)(*(addr))1 << (nr))) : \ __variable_test_bit((nr),(addr))); \ }) It would even be possible to drop the test for bitop_bad_size(addr) in the constant case. And we could still get rid of many double definitions of the same bit. Even if the mask definition of a bit is not error prone by relying on the definition of the bit position, it makes it harder to find all users of this bit.Why so? Just omit the leading underscore when grep-ing, and you'll find all instances (less preprocessor token concatenation, but that's orthogonal). I do use grep for this purpose occasionally, but I prefer tools like cscope. BTW: IMO using grep the way you are suggesting here is annoying for cases where the search string is contained in other items. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |