Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 08/12] service: remove redundant code

[Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>]

<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: Stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@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