On Sat, Nov 27 2021 at 21:00, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 02:22:33AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + * Notes:
>> + * - The loop must be protected with a msi_lock_descs()/msi_unlock_descs()
>> + * pair.
>> + * - It is safe to remove a retrieved MSI descriptor in the loop.
>> + */
>> +#define msi_for_each_desc_from(desc, dev, filter, base_index) \
>> + for ((desc) = __msi_first_desc((dev), (filter), (base_index)); (desc); \
>> + (desc) = msi_next_desc((dev)))
>
> Given this ends up as an xarray it feels really weird that there is a
> hidden shared __next/__iter_idx instead of having the caller provide
> the index storage as is normal for xa operations.
>
> I understand why that isn't desirable at this patch where the storage
> would have to be a list_head pointer, but still, seems like an odd
> place to end up at the end of the series.
>
> eg add index here unused and then the last patch uses it instead of
> __iter_idx.
TBH, didn't think about doing just that. OTH, given the experience of
looking at the creative mess people create, this was probably also a
vain attempt to make it harder in the future.
> Also, I don't understand why filter was stored in the dev and not
> passed into msi_next_desc() in the macro here?
No real reason. I probably just stored it along with the rest. Lemme try
that index approach.
Thanks,
tglx
