On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:19:42PM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> On 2/18/2016 9:48 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > [...]
> CCed changchun, the author for the chained handling of desc and mbuf.
> The change makes the code more readable, but i think the following
> commit message is simple and enough.
Hmm.., my commit log tells a full story:
- What is the issue? (messy/logic twisted code)
- What the code does? (And what are the challenges: few tricky places)
- What's the proposed solution to fix it. (the below pseudo code)
And you suggest me to get rid of the first 2 items and leave 3rd item
(a solution) only?
--yliu
> >
> > while (this_desc_is_not_drained_totally || has_next_desc) {
> > if (this_desc_has_drained_totally) {
> > this_desc = next_desc();
> > }
> >
> > if (mbuf_has_no_room) {
> > mbuf = allocate_a_new_mbuf();
> > }
> >
> > COPY(mbuf, desc);
> > }
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > This refactor makes the code much more readable (IMO), yet it reduces
> > binary code size (nearly 2K).
> I guess the reduced binary code size comes from reduced inline calls to
> mbuf allocation.
>
