From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54193) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeOci-0000R2-6u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:32:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeOce-0005p9-Qu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:32:48 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([194.213.3.17]:29765) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeOce-0005of-Jk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:32:44 -0400 References: <1442333283-13119-1-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <1442333283-13119-21-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> From: Claudio Fontana Message-ID: <56016689.6010808@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:32:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1442333283-13119-21-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 20/46] ivshmem: simplify a bit the code List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: drjones@redhat.com, cam@cs.ualberta.ca, stefanha@redhat.com On 15.09.2015 18:07, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > From: Marc-André Lureau > > Use some more explicit variables to simplify the code. > > nth_eventfd variable is the current eventfd to be manipulated. well maybe a silly question, but then why not call it current_eventfd? > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau > --- > hw/misc/ivshmem.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/misc/ivshmem.c b/hw/misc/ivshmem.c > index 1c98ec3..a60454f 100644 > --- a/hw/misc/ivshmem.c > +++ b/hw/misc/ivshmem.c > @@ -488,9 +488,10 @@ static void ivshmem_read(void *opaque, const uint8_t *buf, int size) > { > IVShmemState *s = opaque; > int incoming_fd; > - int guest_max_eventfd; > + int nth_eventfd; > long incoming_posn; > Error *err = NULL; > + Peer *peer; > > if (!fifo_update_and_get(s, buf, size, > &incoming_posn, sizeof(incoming_posn))) { > @@ -517,6 +518,8 @@ static void ivshmem_read(void *opaque, const uint8_t *buf, int size) > } > } > > + peer = &s->peers[incoming_posn]; > + > if (incoming_fd == -1) { > /* if posn is positive and unseen before then this is our posn*/ > if (incoming_posn >= 0 && s->vm_id == -1) { > @@ -564,27 +567,22 @@ static void ivshmem_read(void *opaque, const uint8_t *buf, int size) > return; > } > > - /* each guest has an array of eventfds, and we keep track of how many > - * guests for each VM */ you removed a few comments, do they no longer apply? If so do they need to be replaced with better ones mentioning how it works in contrast with the previous? > - guest_max_eventfd = s->peers[incoming_posn].nb_eventfds; > + /* get a new eventfd */ > + nth_eventfd = peer->nb_eventfds++; > > /* this is an eventfd for a particular guest VM */ > IVSHMEM_DPRINTF("eventfds[%ld][%d] = %d\n", incoming_posn, > - guest_max_eventfd, incoming_fd); > - event_notifier_init_fd(&s->peers[incoming_posn].eventfds[guest_max_eventfd], > - incoming_fd); > - > - /* increment count for particular guest */ > - s->peers[incoming_posn].nb_eventfds++; > + nth_eventfd, incoming_fd); > + event_notifier_init_fd(&peer->eventfds[nth_eventfd], incoming_fd); > > if (incoming_posn == s->vm_id) { > - s->eventfd_chr[guest_max_eventfd] = create_eventfd_chr_device(s, > - &s->peers[s->vm_id].eventfds[guest_max_eventfd], > - guest_max_eventfd); > + s->eventfd_chr[nth_eventfd] = create_eventfd_chr_device(s, > + &s->peers[s->vm_id].eventfds[nth_eventfd], > + nth_eventfd); > } > > if (ivshmem_has_feature(s, IVSHMEM_IOEVENTFD)) { > - ivshmem_add_eventfd(s, incoming_posn, guest_max_eventfd); > + ivshmem_add_eventfd(s, incoming_posn, nth_eventfd); > } > } > > Ciao C.