From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/irq: remove duplicated clear_domain_irq_pirq calls
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:13:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6726c520-bb0d-7ed7-21c9-aca31b6721f5@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210126160851.3ocxqnkmmxzojrar@Air-de-Roger>
On 26.01.2021 17:08, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 26.01.2021 12:06, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> There are two duplicated calls to cleanup_domain_irq_pirq in
>>> unmap_domain_pirq.
>>>
>>> The first one in the for loop will be called with exactly the same
>>> arguments as the call placed closer to the loop start.
>>
>> I'm having trouble figuring out which two instances you refer
>> to: To me "first one" and "closer to the start" are two ways
>> of expressing the same thing. You don't refer to the call to
>> clear_domain_irq_pirq(), do you, when the two calls you
>> remove are to cleanup_domain_irq_pirq()? Admittedly quite
>> similar names, but entirely different functions.
>
> Urg, yes, that's impossible to parse sensibly, sorry.
>
> Also the subject is wrong, should be cleanup_domain_irq_pirq, not
> clear_domain_irq_pirq.
>
> This should instead be:
>
> "There are two duplicated calls to cleanup_domain_irq_pirq in
> unmap_domain_pirq.
>
> The first removed call to cleanup_domain_irq_pirq will be called with
> exactly the same arguments as the previous call placed above it."
And which one is "the previous call"? I'm still getting the
impression you're mixing up cleanup_domain_irq_pirq() and
clear_domain_irq_pirq(). (I guess we need to resort to line
numbers in current staging or master, to avoid
misunderstandings. Not for the commit message [if any], but
for the discussion.)
> It's hard to explain this in a commit message.
>
> Do you agree that the removed calls are duplicated though? I might have
> as well missed part of the logic here and be wrong about this.
No, for the moment I don't agree yet, because I don't see
the redundancy so far.
>>> The logic used in the loop seems extremely complex to follow IMO,
>>> there are several breaks for exiting the loop, and the index (i) is
>>> also updated in different places.
>>
>> Indeed, and it didn't feel well already back at the time when
>> I much extended this to support multi-vector MSI. I simply
>> didn't have any good idea how to streamline all of this
>> (short of rewriting it altogether, which would have made
>> patch review quite difficult). If you have thoughts, I'm all
>> ears.
>
> I would just rewrite it altogether. Code like this is very prone to
> cause mistakes in the future IMO. If you want I can try to.
I wouldn't mind, but yes, besides review difficulties ...
> I guess the problem with this is that we would lose the history of the
> code for no functional change.
... this also wouldn't be overly nice (but can be dealt with
via a few more steps wading through git history).
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-26 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-26 11:06 [PATCH 0/3] x86/intr: interrupt related fixes Roger Pau Monne
2021-01-26 11:06 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/irq: remove duplicated clear_domain_irq_pirq calls Roger Pau Monne
2021-01-26 14:38 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-26 16:08 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-01-26 16:13 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2021-01-26 11:06 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86/irq: don't disable domain MSI IRQ on force unbind Roger Pau Monne
2021-01-26 14:52 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-26 16:21 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-01-27 8:59 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-26 11:06 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86/vmsi: tolerate unsupported MSI address/data fields Roger Pau Monne
2021-01-26 15:17 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-26 15:57 ` Roger Pau Monné
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6726c520-bb0d-7ed7-21c9-aca31b6721f5@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).