[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 08/12] service: remove redundant code

[Phil Yang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 2:35 AM
> To: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>; Phil Yang
> <Phil.Yang at arm.com>; thomas at monjalon.net; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; stephen at networkplumber.org;
> maxime.coquelin at redhat.com; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand at redhat.com; jerinj at marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <Ruifeng.Wang at arm.com>; Joyce Kong <Joyce.Kong at arm.com>; nd
> <nd at arm.com>; Stable at dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 08/12] service: remove redundant code
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > >
> > > The service id validation is verified in the calling function, remove
> > > the redundant code inside the service_update function.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept")
> > > Cc: Stable at dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang at arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> >
> >
> > Same comment as patch 7/12, is this really a "Fix"? This functionality is not
> > "broken" in  the current code? And is there value in porting to stable? I'd
> see
> > this as unnecessary churn.
> >
> > As before, it is a valid cleanup (thanks), and I'd like to take it for new DPDK
> > releases.
> >
> > Happy to Ack without Fixes or Cc Stable, if that's acceptable to you?
> Agreed.

Agreed. 

> 
> >
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > >  lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 31
> > > ++++++++++++-------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > index 2117726..557b5a9 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > > @@ -552,21 +552,10 @@ rte_service_start_with_defaults(void)
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static int32_t
> > > -service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service, uint32_t lcore,
> > > +service_update(uint32_t sid, uint32_t lcore,
> > >  uint32_t *set, uint32_t *enabled)
> 'set' parameter does not need be passed by reference, pass by value is
> enough.
Agreed.
 
> 
> > >  {
> > > -uint32_t i;
> > > -int32_t sid = -1;
> > > -
> > > -for (i = 0; i < RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX; i++) {
> > > -if ((struct rte_service_spec *)&rte_services[i] == service &&
> > > -service_valid(i)) {
> > > -sid = i;
> > > -break;
> > > -}
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > -if (sid == -1 || lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > > +if (lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > >  return -EINVAL;
> The validations look somewhat inconsistent in service_update function, we
> are validating some parameters and not some.
> Suggest bringing the validation of the service id also into this function and
> remove it from the calling functions.
Agreed. I will update it in the next version.

> 
> > >
> > >  if (!lcore_states[lcore].is_service_core)
> > > @@ -598,19 +587,23 @@ service_update(struct rte_service_spec
> *service,
> > > uint32_t lcore,  int32_t  rte_service_map_lcore_set(uint32_t id,
> > > uint32_t lcore, uint32_t enabled)  {
> > > -struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > > -SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > > +/* validate ID, or return error value */
> > > +if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > > +return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > >  uint32_t on = enabled > 0;
> We do not need the above line. 'enabled' can be passed directly to
> 'service_update'.
Agreed.

> 
> > > -return service_update(&s->spec, lcore, &on, 0);
> > > +return service_update(id, lcore, &on, 0);
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  int32_t
> > >  rte_service_map_lcore_get(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore)  {
> > > -struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > > -SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > > +/* validate ID, or return error value */
> > > +if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > > +return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > >  uint32_t enabled;
> > > -int ret = service_update(&s->spec, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> > > +int ret = service_update(id, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> > >  if (ret == 0)
> > >  return enabled;
> > >  return ret;
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
>