> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tonghao Zhang
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 1:56 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] sched: refine get base helper function
>
> use switch instead of if, and it is more easy reading.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m....@gmail.com>
> ---
> lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c b/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c
> index 587d5e6..17de6e6 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_sched/rte_sched.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ enum rte_sched_port_array {
> uint32_t n_subports_per_port = params->n_subports_per_port;
> uint32_t n_pipes_per_subport = params->n_pipes_per_subport;
> uint32_t n_pipes_per_port = n_pipes_per_subport *
> n_subports_per_port;
> - uint32_t n_queues_per_port = RTE_SCHED_QUEUES_PER_PIPE *
> n_pipes_per_subport * n_subports_per_port;
> + uint32_t n_queues_per_port = RTE_SCHED_QUEUES_PER_PIPE *
> n_pipes_per_port;
>
> uint32_t size_subport = n_subports_per_port * sizeof(struct
> rte_sched_subport);
> uint32_t size_pipe = n_pipes_per_port * sizeof(struct
> rte_sched_pipe);
> @@ -407,35 +407,33 @@ enum rte_sched_port_array {
> size_queue_array = n_pipes_per_port *
> size_per_pipe_queue_array;
>
> base = 0;
> + switch (array) {
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_TOTAL:
> + base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_queue_array);
>
> - if (array == e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_SUBPORT)
> - return base;
> - base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_subport);
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_QUEUE_ARRAY:
> + base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_bmp_array);
>
> - if (array == e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_PIPE)
> - return base;
> - base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_pipe);
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_BMP_ARRAY:
> + base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_pipe_profiles);
>
> - if (array == e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_QUEUE)
> - return base;
> - base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_queue);
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_PIPE_PROFILES:
> + base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_queue_extra);
>
> - if (array == e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_QUEUE_EXTRA)
> - return base;
> - base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_queue_extra);
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_QUEUE_EXTRA:
> + base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_queue);
>
> - if (array == e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_PIPE_PROFILES)
> - return base;
> - base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_pipe_profiles);
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_QUEUE:
> + base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_pipe);
>
> - if (array == e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_BMP_ARRAY)
> - return base;
> - base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_bmp_array);
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_PIPE:
> + base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_subport);
>
> - if (array == e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_QUEUE_ARRAY)
> + case e_RTE_SCHED_PORT_ARRAY_SUBPORT:
> return base;
> - base += RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size_queue_array);
> + }
>
> + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, SCHED, "Should not reach here. \n");
> return base;
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.3.1
NAK.
Sorry, but I completely disagree: to me, using the pattern you describe makes
the code much harder to read as opposed to simpler to read.
