From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 001E6C6FA8F for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbHuM-0005d2-Ry; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:54:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbHuL-0005a3-2r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:54:41 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qbHuI-0004KO-Td for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:54:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1693389278; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wi/eDvU6j804U3lCw5Vz9pX3ABCPZjwS6Y8F0yso8PQ=; b=MFcnlh8B2PySUjxubzMGlwyoKdiee/qA9sgyo3g9nI9rpdn52qJMxsjw3EDeb4bnUL7yhP Txw3AuM8kYO4N5nKO8rWsSiDni2Wz4ZKidpdlblgiTsRCAM4oiaQSfUIkXyFxK+I6XywJ+ 4CM9E+ytArmy0N5UYC+QxcOv6uR2rBA= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-639-3_oUr3QCPle-usmdKS3Z_A-1; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:54:36 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 3_oUr3QCPle-usmdKS3Z_A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0271101A528; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.192.65] (unknown [10.39.192.65]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84F136466B; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4d3d247c-1790-679c-0e8a-d9e742b019d2@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:54:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg" Content-Language: en-US From: Laszlo Ersek To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Eugenio Perez Martin , German Maglione , Liu Jiang , Sergio Lopez Pascual References: <20230827182937.146450-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20230827182937.146450-4-lersek@redhat.com> <7d0a1750-1a2f-1201-3cff-7c8dc932b830@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <7d0a1750-1a2f-1201-3cff-7c8dc932b830@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On 8/30/23 11:14, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 8/30/23 10:31, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 08:29:33PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> The tails of the "vhost_user_set_vring_addr" and "vhost_user_set_u64" >>> functions are now byte-for-byte identical. Factor the common tail out >>> to a >>> new function called "vhost_user_write_msg". >>> >>> This is purely refactoring -- no observable change. >>> >>> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" (supporter:vhost) >>> Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin >>> Cc: German Maglione >>> Cc: Liu Jiang >>> Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual >>> Cc: Stefano Garzarella >>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek >>> --- >>> hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 66 +++++++++----------- >>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >>> index 64eac317bfb2..36f99b66a644 100644 >>> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >>> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >>> @@ -1320,10 +1320,35 @@ static int enforce_reply(struct vhost_dev *dev, >>>     return vhost_user_get_features(dev, &dummy); >>> } >>> >>> +/* Note: "msg->hdr.flags" may be modified. */ >>> +static int vhost_user_write_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev, VhostUserMsg >>> *msg, >>> +                                bool wait_for_reply) >> >> The difference between vhost_user_write() and vhost_user_write_msg() is >> not immediately obvious from the function name, so I would propose >> something different, like vhost_user_write_sync() or >> vhost_user_write_wait(). > > I'm mostly OK with either variant; I think I may have thought of _sync > myself, but didn't like it because the wait would be *optional*, > dependent on caller choice. And I didn't like > vhost_user_write_maybe_wait() either; that one seemed awkward / too verbose. > > Let's see what others prefer. :) ... I went with vhost_user_write_sync. > >> >> Anyway, I'm not good with names and don't have a strong opinion, so this >> version is fine with me as well :-) >> >> Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella >> > > Thanks!