From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:28 AM > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 09:00:31AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > @@ -470,7 +471,6 @@ struct vmpacket_descriptor *hv_pkt_iter_first_raw(struct > > > > vmbus_channel *channel) > > > > > > > > return (struct vmpacket_descriptor *)(hv_get_ring_buffer(rbi) + rbi- > > > > >priv_read_index); > > > > } > > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hv_pkt_iter_first_raw); > > > > > > Does hv_pkt_iter_first_raw() need to be retained at all as a > > > separate function? I think after these changes, the only caller > > > is hv_pkt_iter_first(), in which case the code could just go > > > inline in hv_pkt_iter_first(). Doing that combining would > > > also allow the elimination of the duplicate call to > > > hv_pkt_iter_avail(). > > Back to this, can you clarify what you mean by "the elimination of..."? > After moving the function "inline", hv_pkt_iter_avail() would be called > in to check for a non-NULL descriptor (in the inline function) and later > in the computation of bytes_avail. I was thinking something like this: bytes_avail = hv_pkt_iter_avail(rbi); if (bytes_avail < sizeof(struct vmpacket_descriptor)) return NULL; bytes_avail = min(rbi->pkt_buffer_size, bytes_avail); desc = (struct vmpacket_descriptor *)(hv_get_ring_buffer(rbi) + rbi->priv_read_index); And for that matter, hv_pkt_iter_avail() is now only called in one place. It's a judgment call whether to keep it as a separate helper function vs. inlining it in hv_pkt_iter_first() as well. I'm OK either way. Michael _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
