<snip>

> >
> > The service id validation is verified in the calling function, remove
> > the redundant code inside the service_update function.
> >
> > Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.y...@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>
> 
> 
> Same comment as patch 7/12, is this really a "Fix"? This functionality is not
> "broken" in  the current code? And is there value in porting to stable? I'd 
> see
> this as unnecessary churn.
> 
> As before, it is a valid cleanup (thanks), and I'd like to take it for new 
> DPDK
> releases.
> 
> Happy to Ack without Fixes or Cc Stable, if that's acceptable to you?
Agreed.

> 
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c | 31
> > ++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > index 2117726..557b5a9 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/rte_service.c
> > @@ -552,21 +552,10 @@ rte_service_start_with_defaults(void)
> >  }
> >
> >  static int32_t
> > -service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service, uint32_t lcore,
> > +service_update(uint32_t sid, uint32_t lcore,
> >             uint32_t *set, uint32_t *enabled)
'set' parameter does not need be passed by reference, pass by value is enough.

> >  {
> > -   uint32_t i;
> > -   int32_t sid = -1;
> > -
> > -   for (i = 0; i < RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX; i++) {
> > -           if ((struct rte_service_spec *)&rte_services[i] == service &&
> > -                           service_valid(i)) {
> > -                   sid = i;
> > -                   break;
> > -           }
> > -   }
> > -
> > -   if (sid == -1 || lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> > +   if (lcore >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)
> >             return -EINVAL;
The validations look somewhat inconsistent in service_update function, we are 
validating some parameters and not some.
Suggest bringing the validation of the service id also into this function and 
remove it from the calling functions.

> >
> >     if (!lcore_states[lcore].is_service_core)
> > @@ -598,19 +587,23 @@ service_update(struct rte_service_spec *service,
> > uint32_t lcore,  int32_t  rte_service_map_lcore_set(uint32_t id,
> > uint32_t lcore, uint32_t enabled)  {
> > -   struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > -   SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > +   /* validate ID, or return error value */
> > +   if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > +           return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >     uint32_t on = enabled > 0;
We do not need the above line. 'enabled' can be passed directly to 
'service_update'.

> > -   return service_update(&s->spec, lcore, &on, 0);
> > +   return service_update(id, lcore, &on, 0);
> >  }
> >
> >  int32_t
> >  rte_service_map_lcore_get(uint32_t id, uint32_t lcore)  {
> > -   struct rte_service_spec_impl *s;
> > -   SERVICE_VALID_GET_OR_ERR_RET(id, s, -EINVAL);
> > +   /* validate ID, or return error value */
> > +   if (id >= RTE_SERVICE_NUM_MAX || !service_valid(id))
> > +           return -EINVAL;
> > +
> >     uint32_t enabled;
> > -   int ret = service_update(&s->spec, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> > +   int ret = service_update(id, lcore, 0, &enabled);
> >     if (ret == 0)
> >             return enabled;
> >     return ret;
> > --
> > 2.7.4

Reply via email to