From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: provide rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk
 API
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:17:48 +0800
Message-ID: <20151218021748.GH29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1450049754-33635-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <1450055682-51953-1-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <1450055682-51953-2-git-send-email-huawei.xie@intel.com>
 <20151217064106.GY29571@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836AD484A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4901ACE7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:17:30 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836AD484A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:42:19PM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
> > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 6:41 AM
> > To: Xie, Huawei
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] mbuf: provide rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk API
> > 
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned idx = 0;
> > > +	int rc;
> > > +
> > > +	rc = rte_mempool_get_bulk(pool, (void **)mbufs, count);
> > > +	if (unlikely(rc))
> > > +		return rc;
> > > +
> > > +	switch (count % 4) {
> > > +	while (idx != count) {
> > 
> > Well, that's an awkward trick, putting while between switch and case.
> > 
> > How about moving the whole switch block ahead, and use goto?
> > 
> > 	switch (count % 4) {
> > 	case 3:
> > 		goto __3;
> > 		break;
> > 	case 2:
> > 		goto __2;
> > 		break;
> > 	...
> > 
> > 	}
> > 
> > It basically generates same instructions, yet it improves the
> > readability a bit.
> 
> I am personally not a big fun of gotos, unless it is totally unavoidable.
> I think switch/while construction is pretty obvious these days.

To me, it's not. (well, maybe I have been out for a while :(

> For me the original variant looks cleaner,

I agree with you on that. But it sacrifices code readability a bit.
If two pieces of code generates same instructions, but one is cleaner
(shorter), another one is more readable, I'd prefer the later.

> so my vote would be to stick with it.

Okay. And anyway, above is just a suggestion, and I'm open to other
suggestions.

	--yliu