On 12/12/23 12:57 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:46:40AM -0800, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
+ /* Slot store, does not require additional nodes */
+ if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree))
+ || (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
+ return 0;
Should we refactor this into a mas_is_slot_store() predicate?
yes, I think we should add helper functions to identify the different type of
stores. Thanks for the pointers to code style this is what I think the slot
store identifying helper function would look like:
static inline bool mas_wr_is_slot_store(struct ma_wr_state *wr_mas)
{
struct ma_state *mas = wr_mas->mas;
unsigned char node_size = mas_wr_new_end(wr_mas);
if ((node_size == mas->end) &&
(!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) || (wr_mas->offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return true;
return false;
}
thanks,
Sid
A few coding-style problems with it as it's currently written:
1. The indentation on the second line is wrong. It makes the
continuation of the condition look like part of the statement. Use
extra whitespace to indent. eg:
if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree))
|| (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
2. The operator goes last on the line, not at the beginning of the
continuation line. ie:
if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree)) ||
(wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
3. You don't need parens around the !mt_in_rcu(mas->tree). There's
no ambiguity to solve here:
if ((node_size == mas->end) && (!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) ||
(wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
But I'd write it as:
if ((node_size == mas->end) &&
(!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) || (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
because then the whitespace matches how you're supposed to parse the
condition, and so the next person to read this code will have an easier
time of it.
