qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg"


From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg"
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:14:28 +0200

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" <mst@redhat.com> (supporter:vhost)
>> Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com>
>> Cc: German Maglione <gmaglione@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Liu Jiang <gerry@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual <slp@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> 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. :)

> 
> 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 <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> 

Thanks!




reply via email to

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