| Message ID | 20230510-dcb-rewr-v1-4-83adc1f93356@microchip.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | David Ahern |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce new dcb-rewr subcommand | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com> writes: > When doing a replace command, entries are checked against selector and > protocol. Rewrite requires the check to be against selector and > priority. > > Modify the existing dcb_app_table_remove_replace function for dcb-rewr > reuse, by using the newly introduced dcbnl attribute in the > dcb_app_table struct. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com> > --- > dcb/dcb_app.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dcb/dcb_app.c b/dcb/dcb_app.c > index 9bb64f32e12e..23d6bb2a0013 100644 > --- a/dcb/dcb_app.c > +++ b/dcb/dcb_app.c > @@ -160,15 +160,27 @@ void dcb_app_table_remove_replaced(struct dcb_app_table *a, > for (ib = 0; ib < b->n_apps; ib++) { > const struct dcb_app *ab = &b->apps[ib]; > > - if (aa->selector == ab->selector && > - aa->protocol == ab->protocol) > - present = true; > - else > + if (aa->selector != ab->selector) > continue; > > - if (aa->priority == ab->priority) { > - found = true; > - break; > + if (a->attr == DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP_TABLE) { > + if (aa->protocol == ab->protocol) > + present = true; > + else > + continue; > + if (aa->priority == ab->priority) { > + found = true; > + break; > + } > + } else { > + if (aa->priority == ab->priority) > + present = true; > + else > + continue; > + if (aa->protocol == ab->protocol) { > + found = true; > + break; > + } > } > } Same point about the attribute dispatch. How about this? (Not tested though.) static bool dcb_app_pid_eq(const struct dcb_app *aa, const struct dcb_app *ab) { return aa->selector == ab->selector && aa->protocol == ab->protocol; } static bool dcb_app_prio_eq(const struct dcb_app *aa, const struct dcb_app *ab) { return aa->selector == ab->selector && aa->priority == ab->priority; } static void __dcb_app_table_remove_replaced(struct dcb_app_table *a, const struct dcb_app_table *b, bool (*key_eq)(const struct dcb_app *aa, const struct dcb_app *ab), bool (*val_eq)(const struct dcb_app *aa, const struct dcb_app *ab)) { size_t ia, ja; size_t ib; for (ia = 0, ja = 0; ia < a->n_apps; ia++) { struct dcb_app *aa = &a->apps[ia]; bool present = false; bool found = false; for (ib = 0; ib < b->n_apps; ib++) { const struct dcb_app *ab = &b->apps[ib]; if (key_eq(aa, ab)) present = true; else continue; if (val_eq(aa, ab)) { found = true; break; } } /* Entries that remain in A will be removed, so keep in the * table only APP entries whose sel/pid is mentioned in B, * but that do not have the full sel/pid/prio match. */ if (present && !found) a->apps[ja++] = *aa; } a->n_apps = ja; } void dcb_app_table_remove_replaced(struct dcb_app_table *a, const struct dcb_app_table *b) { __dcb_app_table_remove_replaced(a, b, dcb_app_pid_eq, dcb_app_prio_eq); } void dcb_rwr_table_remove_replaced(struct dcb_app_table *a, const struct dcb_app_table *b) { __dcb_app_table_remove_replaced(a, b, dcb_app_prio_eq, dcb_app_pid_eq); } Alternatively have key / value extractor callbacks and compare those instead of directly priority and protocol. And actually now that I think about it more, a key_eq / get_key callback is all we need. Instead of val_eq / get_val, we can just compare the full app. We know the key matches already, so whatever it actually is, it will not prevent the second match. Dunno. I just don't want the attribute field become a polymorphic type tag of the structure. DCB is using these callbacks quite a bit all over the place, so code like this will be right at home. I was actually looking at dcb_app_table_remove_existing(), which is tantalizingly close to being a special case of the above where key_eq just always returns true and val_eq compares all fields. But alas for empty tables it would do the wrong thing.
diff --git a/dcb/dcb_app.c b/dcb/dcb_app.c index 9bb64f32e12e..23d6bb2a0013 100644 --- a/dcb/dcb_app.c +++ b/dcb/dcb_app.c @@ -160,15 +160,27 @@ void dcb_app_table_remove_replaced(struct dcb_app_table *a, for (ib = 0; ib < b->n_apps; ib++) { const struct dcb_app *ab = &b->apps[ib]; - if (aa->selector == ab->selector && - aa->protocol == ab->protocol) - present = true; - else + if (aa->selector != ab->selector) continue; - if (aa->priority == ab->priority) { - found = true; - break; + if (a->attr == DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP_TABLE) { + if (aa->protocol == ab->protocol) + present = true; + else + continue; + if (aa->priority == ab->priority) { + found = true; + break; + } + } else { + if (aa->priority == ab->priority) + present = true; + else + continue; + if (aa->protocol == ab->protocol) { + found = true; + break; + } } }
When doing a replace command, entries are checked against selector and protocol. Rewrite requires the check to be against selector and priority. Modify the existing dcb_app_table_remove_replace function for dcb-rewr reuse, by using the newly introduced dcbnl attribute in the dcb_app_table struct. Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com> --- dcb/dcb_app.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)