On Thu, Mar 08 2018 at 16:58 -0700, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08 2018 at 12:41 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Lina Iyer (2018-03-02 08:43:12)
+static int find_slots(struct tcs_group *tcs, struct tcs_request *msg,
+ int *m, int *n)
+{
+ int slot, offset;
+ int i = 0;
+
+ /* Find if we already have the msg in our TCS */
+ slot = find_match(tcs, msg->payload, msg->num_payload);
+ if (slot >= 0)
+ goto copy_data;
Shouldn't this goto skip setting the bits in tcs->slots?
No, we overwrite what we found with this new data.
+
+ /* Do over, until we can fit the full payload in a TCS */
+ do {
+ slot = bitmap_find_next_zero_area(tcs->slots, MAX_TCS_SLOTS,
+ i, msg->num_payload, 0);
+ if (slot == MAX_TCS_SLOTS)
+ break;
+ i += tcs->ncpt;
+ } while (slot + msg->num_payload - 1 >= i);
+
+ if (slot == MAX_TCS_SLOTS)
+ return -ENOMEM;
Would be nice to remove this duplicate condition somehow. Maybe a goto?
I would return instead of the break earlier instead of this here.
+
+copy_data:
+ bitmap_set(tcs->slots, slot, msg->num_payload);
+ /* Copy the addresses of the resources over to the slots */
+ if (tcs->cmd_addr) {
find_match() above didn't check for tcs->cmd_addr. Does this ever happen
to fail?
Not allocated for active TCSes. I should be checking for it there as
well. Not sure how I didnt see a failure.
Ah, this function is never called for active tcs which would have the
tcs->cmd_addr to be NULL. I dont need this check.
-- Lina
