From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] vhost: refactor
	rte_vhost_dequeue_burst
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:11:54 +0800
Message-ID: <20160304021154.GS14300@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1449122773-25510-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1455803352-5518-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1455803352-5518-2-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C62709B@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Victor Kaplansky <vkaplans@redhat.com>
To: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B9C2BAD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  4 Mar 2016 03:10:25 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C62709B@SHSMSX101.ccr.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, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:19:42PM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> On 2/18/2016 9:48 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > [...]
> CCed changchun, the author for the chained handling of desc and mbuf.
> The change makes the code more readable, but i think the following
> commit message is simple and enough.

Hmm.., my commit log tells a full story:

- What is the issue? (messy/logic twisted code)

- What the code does? (And what are the challenges: few tricky places)

- What's the proposed solution to fix it. (the below pseudo code)

And you suggest me to get rid of the first 2 items and leave 3rd item
(a solution) only?

	--yliu

> >
> > 	while (this_desc_is_not_drained_totally || has_next_desc) {
> > 		if (this_desc_has_drained_totally) {
> > 			this_desc = next_desc();
> > 		}
> >
> > 		if (mbuf_has_no_room) {
> > 			mbuf = allocate_a_new_mbuf();
> > 		}
> >
> > 		COPY(mbuf, desc);
> > 	}
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > This refactor makes the code much more readable (IMO), yet it reduces
> > binary code size (nearly 2K).
> I guess the reduced binary code size comes from reduced inline calls to
> mbuf allocation.
>