qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: slightly simplify bufioreq handling


From: Jan Beulich
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: slightly simplify bufioreq handling
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 02:24:40 -0700

There's no point setting fields always receiving the same value on each
iteration, as handle_ioreq() doesn't alter them anyway. Set state and
count once ahead of the loop, drop the redundant clearing of
data_is_ptr, and avoid the meaningless setting of df altogether.

Also avoid doing an unsigned long calculation of size when the field to
be initialized is only 32 bits wide (and the shift value in the range
0...3).

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <address@hidden>

--- a/xen-hvm.c
+++ b/xen-hvm.c
@@ -995,6 +995,8 @@ static int handle_buffered_iopage(XenIOS
     }
 
     memset(&req, 0x00, sizeof(req));
+    req.state = STATE_IOREQ_READY;
+    req.count = 1;
 
     for (;;) {
         uint32_t rdptr = buf_page->read_pointer, wrptr;
@@ -1009,15 +1011,11 @@ static int handle_buffered_iopage(XenIOS
             break;
         }
         buf_req = &buf_page->buf_ioreq[rdptr % IOREQ_BUFFER_SLOT_NUM];
-        req.size = 1UL << buf_req->size;
-        req.count = 1;
+        req.size = 1U << buf_req->size;
         req.addr = buf_req->addr;
         req.data = buf_req->data;
-        req.state = STATE_IOREQ_READY;
         req.dir = buf_req->dir;
-        req.df = 1;
         req.type = buf_req->type;
-        req.data_is_ptr = 0;
         xen_rmb();
         qw = (req.size == 8);
         if (qw) {
@@ -1032,6 +1030,13 @@ static int handle_buffered_iopage(XenIOS
 
         handle_ioreq(state, &req);
 
+        /* Only req.data may get updated by handle_ioreq(), albeit even that
+         * should not happen as such data would never make it to the guest.
+         */
+        assert(req.state == STATE_IOREQ_READY);
+        assert(req.count == 1);
+        assert(!req.data_is_ptr);
+
         atomic_add(&buf_page->read_pointer, qw + 1);
     }
 






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]