Re: [PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg"
On 8/30/23 11:14, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 8/30/23 10:31, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 08:29:33PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> The tails of the "vhost_user_set_vring_addr" and "vhost_user_set_u64" >>> functions are now byte-for-byte identical. Factor the common tail out >>> to a >>> new function called "vhost_user_write_msg". >>> >>> This is purely refactoring -- no observable change. >>> >>> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" (supporter:vhost) >>> Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin >>> Cc: German Maglione >>> Cc: Liu Jiang >>> Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual >>> Cc: Stefano Garzarella >>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek >>> --- >>> hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 66 +--- >>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >>> index 64eac317bfb2..36f99b66a644 100644 >>> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >>> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >>> @@ -1320,10 +1320,35 @@ static int enforce_reply(struct vhost_dev *dev, >>> return vhost_user_get_features(dev, ); >>> } >>> >>> +/* Note: "msg->hdr.flags" may be modified. */ >>> +static int vhost_user_write_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev, VhostUserMsg >>> *msg, >>> + bool wait_for_reply) >> >> The difference between vhost_user_write() and vhost_user_write_msg() is >> not immediately obvious from the function name, so I would propose >> something different, like vhost_user_write_sync() or >> vhost_user_write_wait(). > > I'm mostly OK with either variant; I think I may have thought of _sync > myself, but didn't like it because the wait would be *optional*, > dependent on caller choice. And I didn't like > vhost_user_write_maybe_wait() either; that one seemed awkward / too verbose. > > Let's see what others prefer. :) ... I went with vhost_user_write_sync. > >> >> Anyway, I'm not good with names and don't have a strong opinion, so this >> version is fine with me as well :-) >> >> Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella >> > > Thanks!
Re: [PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg"
On 8/30/23 10:31, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 08:29:33PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> The tails of the "vhost_user_set_vring_addr" and "vhost_user_set_u64" >> functions are now byte-for-byte identical. Factor the common tail out >> to a >> new function called "vhost_user_write_msg". >> >> This is purely refactoring -- no observable change. >> >> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" (supporter:vhost) >> Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin >> Cc: German Maglione >> Cc: Liu Jiang >> Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual >> Cc: Stefano Garzarella >> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek >> --- >> hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 66 +--- >> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >> index 64eac317bfb2..36f99b66a644 100644 >> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c >> @@ -1320,10 +1320,35 @@ static int enforce_reply(struct vhost_dev *dev, >> return vhost_user_get_features(dev, ); >> } >> >> +/* Note: "msg->hdr.flags" may be modified. */ >> +static int vhost_user_write_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev, VhostUserMsg >> *msg, >> + bool wait_for_reply) > > The difference between vhost_user_write() and vhost_user_write_msg() is > not immediately obvious from the function name, so I would propose > something different, like vhost_user_write_sync() or > vhost_user_write_wait(). I'm mostly OK with either variant; I think I may have thought of _sync myself, but didn't like it because the wait would be *optional*, dependent on caller choice. And I didn't like vhost_user_write_maybe_wait() either; that one seemed awkward / too verbose. Let's see what others prefer. :) > > Anyway, I'm not good with names and don't have a strong opinion, so this > version is fine with me as well :-) > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella > Thanks!
Re: [PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg"
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 08:29:33PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: The tails of the "vhost_user_set_vring_addr" and "vhost_user_set_u64" functions are now byte-for-byte identical. Factor the common tail out to a new function called "vhost_user_write_msg". This is purely refactoring -- no observable change. Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" (supporter:vhost) Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin Cc: German Maglione Cc: Liu Jiang Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual Cc: Stefano Garzarella Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek --- hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 66 +--- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c index 64eac317bfb2..36f99b66a644 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c @@ -1320,10 +1320,35 @@ static int enforce_reply(struct vhost_dev *dev, return vhost_user_get_features(dev, ); } +/* Note: "msg->hdr.flags" may be modified. */ +static int vhost_user_write_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev, VhostUserMsg *msg, +bool wait_for_reply) The difference between vhost_user_write() and vhost_user_write_msg() is not immediately obvious from the function name, so I would propose something different, like vhost_user_write_sync() or vhost_user_write_wait(). Anyway, I'm not good with names and don't have a strong opinion, so this version is fine with me as well :-) Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella
Re: [PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg"
On 27/8/23 20:29, Laszlo Ersek wrote: The tails of the "vhost_user_set_vring_addr" and "vhost_user_set_u64" functions are now byte-for-byte identical. Factor the common tail out to a new function called "vhost_user_write_msg". This is purely refactoring -- no observable change. Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" (supporter:vhost) Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin Cc: German Maglione Cc: Liu Jiang Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual Cc: Stefano Garzarella Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek --- hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 66 +--- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
[PATCH 3/7] vhost-user: factor out "vhost_user_write_msg"
The tails of the "vhost_user_set_vring_addr" and "vhost_user_set_u64"
functions are now byte-for-byte identical. Factor the common tail out to a
new function called "vhost_user_write_msg".
This is purely refactoring -- no observable change.
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" (supporter:vhost)
Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin
Cc: German Maglione
Cc: Liu Jiang
Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual
Cc: Stefano Garzarella
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek
---
hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 66 +---
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
index 64eac317bfb2..36f99b66a644 100644
--- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
+++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
@@ -1320,10 +1320,35 @@ static int enforce_reply(struct vhost_dev *dev,
return vhost_user_get_features(dev, );
}
+/* Note: "msg->hdr.flags" may be modified. */
+static int vhost_user_write_msg(struct vhost_dev *dev, VhostUserMsg *msg,
+bool wait_for_reply)
+{
+int ret;
+
+if (wait_for_reply) {
+bool reply_supported = virtio_has_feature(dev->protocol_features,
+ VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK);
+if (reply_supported) {
+msg->hdr.flags |= VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY_MASK;
+}
+}
+
+ret = vhost_user_write(dev, msg, NULL, 0);
+if (ret < 0) {
+return ret;
+}
+
+if (wait_for_reply) {
+return enforce_reply(dev, msg);
+}
+
+return 0;
+}
+
static int vhost_user_set_vring_addr(struct vhost_dev *dev,
struct vhost_vring_addr *addr)
{
-int ret;
VhostUserMsg msg = {
.hdr.request = VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ADDR,
.hdr.flags = VHOST_USER_VERSION,
@@ -1337,24 +1362,7 @@ static int vhost_user_set_vring_addr(struct vhost_dev
*dev,
*/
bool wait_for_reply = addr->flags & (1 << VHOST_VRING_F_LOG);
-if (wait_for_reply) {
-bool reply_supported = virtio_has_feature(dev->protocol_features,
- VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK);
-if (reply_supported) {
-msg.hdr.flags |= VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY_MASK;
-}
-}
-
-ret = vhost_user_write(dev, , NULL, 0);
-if (ret < 0) {
-return ret;
-}
-
-if (wait_for_reply) {
-return enforce_reply(dev, );
-}
-
-return 0;
+return vhost_user_write_msg(dev, , wait_for_reply);
}
static int vhost_user_set_u64(struct vhost_dev *dev, int request, uint64_t u64,
@@ -1366,26 +1374,8 @@ static int vhost_user_set_u64(struct vhost_dev *dev, int
request, uint64_t u64,
.payload.u64 = u64,
.hdr.size = sizeof(msg.payload.u64),
};
-int ret;
-if (wait_for_reply) {
-bool reply_supported = virtio_has_feature(dev->protocol_features,
- VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK);
-if (reply_supported) {
-msg.hdr.flags |= VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY_MASK;
-}
-}
-
-ret = vhost_user_write(dev, , NULL, 0);
-if (ret < 0) {
-return ret;
-}
-
-if (wait_for_reply) {
-return enforce_reply(dev, );
-}
-
-return 0;
+return vhost_user_write_msg(dev, , wait_for_reply);
}
static int vhost_user_set_status(struct vhost_dev *dev, uint8_t status)
