On Sun 2019-02-17 02:32:22, John Ogness wrote: > Hi Petr, > > I've made changes to the patch that hopefully align with what you are > looking for. I would appreciate it if you could go over it and see if > the changes are in the right direction. And if so, you should decide > whether I should make these kinds of changes for the whole series and > submit a v2 before you continue with the review. > > The list of changes: > > - Added comments everywhere I think they could be useful. Is it too > much?
Some comments probably can get shortened. But I personally find them really helpful. I am not going to do a detailed review of this variant at the moment. I would like to finish the review of the entire patchset first. > - I tried moving calc_next() into prb_reserve(), but it was pure > insanity. I played with refactoring for a while until I found > something that I think looks nice. I moved the implementation of > calc_next() along with its containing loop into a new function > find_res_ptrs(). This function does what calc_next() and push_tail() > did. With this solution, I think prb_reserve() looks pretty > clean. However, the optimization of communicating about the wrap is > gone. So even though find_res_ptrs() knew if a wrap occurred, > prb_reserve() figures it out again for itself. If we want the > optimization, I still think the best approach is the -1,0,1 return > value of find_res_ptrs(). I still have to go more deeply into it. Anyway, the new code looks much better than the previous one. Best Regards, Petr
