qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 12/24] numa: add numa_[has_]node_i


From: Andrew Jones
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 12/24] numa: add numa_[has_]node_id() wrappers
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 11:06:02 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:09:18AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2017 11:45:22 +1000
> David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:57:06PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > wrappers should make access to [has]node_id fields more readable
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>  
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> > 
> > Correct, though I'm not sure it actually simplifies things that much.
> > Maybe more in future patches, though.
> that's what Drew insisted on, and even though I prefer other way around
> I won't stall series arguing about styling issues,
> so here this patch goes.

My argument in the last review of this series was that references like

 machine->possible_cpus->cpus[cs->cpu_index].props.has_node_id
and
 machine->possible_cpus->cpus[cs->cpu_index].props.node_id

are quite long, and only differ by 'has_', making it tough to
easily recognize. But, if nobody, but me, sees value in changing
them to

 numa_has_node_id(machine->possible_cpus, cs->cpu_index)
and
 numa_node_id(machine->possible_cpus, cs->cpu_index)

then I won't insist.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> > 
> > > ---
> > >  follow up patches will use this wrappers
> > >  v2:
> > >     - add wrappers (Drew)
> > > ---
> > >  include/sysemu/numa.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > >  numa.c                |  2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/sysemu/numa.h b/include/sysemu/numa.h
> > > index 46ea6c7..98d01e6 100644
> > > --- a/include/sysemu/numa.h
> > > +++ b/include/sysemu/numa.h
> > > @@ -35,4 +35,14 @@ uint32_t numa_get_node(ram_addr_t addr, Error **errp);
> > >  /* on success returns node index in numa_info,
> > >   * on failure returns nb_numa_nodes */
> > >  int numa_get_node_for_cpu(int idx);
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool numa_has_node_id(const CPUArchIdList *possible_cpus, 
> > > int idx)
> > > +{
> > > +    return possible_cpus->cpus[idx].props.has_node_id;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int numa_node_id(const CPUArchIdList *possible_cpus, int 
> > > idx)
> > > +{
> > > +    return possible_cpus->cpus[idx].props.node_id;
> > > +}
> > >  #endif
> > > diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c
> > > index c7e3e0a..872ee0d 100644
> > > --- a/numa.c
> > > +++ b/numa.c
> > > @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ void parse_numa_opts(MachineState *ms)
> > >  
> > >          possible_cpus = mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids(ms);
> > >          for (i = 0; i < possible_cpus->len; i++) {
> > > -            if (possible_cpus->cpus[i].props.has_node_id) {
> > > +            if (numa_has_node_id(possible_cpus, i)) {
> > >                  break;
> > >              }
> > >          }  
> > 
> 
> 



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]