Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 05/13] xen/pvcalls: implement bind command

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>> 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.

-boris


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel