David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 11.10.24 03:06, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On 10.10.24 08:55, Huang Ying wrote:
>>>> Currently, if __region_intersects() finds any overlapped but unmatched
>>>> resource, it walks the descendant resource tree to check for
>>>> overlapped and matched descendant resources. This is achieved using
>>>> for_each_resource(), which iterates not only the descent tree, but
>>>> also subsequent sibling trees in certain scenarios. While this
>>>> doesn't introduce bugs, it makes code hard to be understood and
>>>> potentially inefficient.
>>>> So, the patch renames next_resource() to __next_resource() and
>>>> modified it to return NULL after traversing all descent resources.
>>>> Test shows that this avoids unnecessary resource tree walking in
>>>> __region_intersects().
>>>> It appears even better to revise for_each_resource() to traverse the
>>>> descendant resource tree of "_root" only. But that will cause "_root"
>>>> to be evaluated twice, which I don't find a good way to eliminate.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I'm enjoying below code, it makes it harder for me to
>>> understand what's happening.
>>>
>>> I'm also not 100% sure why "p" becomes "root" and "dp" becomes "p" when
>>> calling the function :) Likely this works as intended, but it's confusing
>>> (IOW, bad naming, especially for dp).
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you should just leave next_resource() alone and rather add
>>> a new function that doesn't conditionally consume NULL pointers
>>> (and also no skip_children because you're passing false either way).
>>>
>>> static struct resource *next_resource_XXX(struct resource *root,
>>> struct resource *p)
>>> {
>>> while (!p->sibling && p->parent) {
>>> p = p->parent;
>>> if (p == root)
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>> return p->sibling;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Maybe even better, add a new for_each_resource() macro that expresses the intended semantics.
>>>
>>> #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \
>>> for ((_p) = (_root)->child; (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(_root, _p))
>> Yes. This can improve code readability.
>> A possible issue is that "_root" will be evaluated twice in above
>> macro
>> definition.
>
> Do you mean that we would process it twice in the loop body, or what
> exactly do you mean with "evaluate" ?
In the macro definition above, _root is used twice. For example, if
"_root" is a time consuming function call, the function will run twice.
That's not expected.
> And just I understand what we want to achieve: we want to walk the
> subtree below "root" and prevent going to root->sibling or
> root->parent if "root" is not actually the "real root", correct?
>
> X
> |--------|
> A----D E
> |
> B--C
>
>
> So assume we start walking at A, we want to evaluate A,B,C but not D,E,X.
>
> Does that sum up what we want to achieve?
Yes.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
