-
Eric Blake authored
Our code relies on a sentinel cookie value of zero for deciding when a packet has been handled, as well as relying on array indices between 0 and MAX_NBD_REQUESTS-1 for dereferencing purposes. As long as we can symmetrically convert between two forms, there is no reason to go with the odd choice of using XOR with a random pointer, when we can instead simplify the mappings with a mere offset of 1. Using ((uint64_t)-1) as the sentinel instead of NULL such that the two macros could be entirely eliminated might also be possible, but would require a more careful audit to find places where we currently rely on zero-initialization to be interpreted as the sentinel value, so I did not pursue that course. Signed-off-by:
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20230608135653.2918540-7-eblake@redhat.com>
[eblake: enhance commit message]
Reviewed-by:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>Eric Blake authoredOur code relies on a sentinel cookie value of zero for deciding when a packet has been handled, as well as relying on array indices between 0 and MAX_NBD_REQUESTS-1 for dereferencing purposes. As long as we can symmetrically convert between two forms, there is no reason to go with the odd choice of using XOR with a random pointer, when we can instead simplify the mappings with a mere offset of 1. Using ((uint64_t)-1) as the sentinel instead of NULL such that the two macros could be entirely eliminated might also be possible, but would require a more careful audit to find places where we currently rely on zero-initialization to be interpreted as the sentinel value, so I did not pursue that course. Signed-off-by:
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20230608135653.2918540-7-eblake@redhat.com>
[eblake: enhance commit message]
Reviewed-by:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Loading