On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:46:40AM -0800, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:yes, I think we should add helper functions to identify the different type of stores. Thanks for the pointers to code style this is what I think the slot store identifying helper function would look like:
+ /* Slot store, does not require additional nodes */
+ if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree))
+ || (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
+ return 0;
Should we refactor this into a mas_is_slot_store() predicate?
A few coding-style problems with it as it's currently written:
1. The indentation on the second line is wrong. It makes the
continuation of the condition look like part of the statement. Use
extra whitespace to indent. eg:
if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree))
|| (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
2. The operator goes last on the line, not at the beginning of the
continuation line. ie:
if ((node_size == mas->end) && ((!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree)) ||
(wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
3. You don't need parens around the !mt_in_rcu(mas->tree). There's
no ambiguity to solve here:
if ((node_size == mas->end) && (!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) ||
(wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
But I'd write it as:
if ((node_size == mas->end) &&
(!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) || (wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1)))
return 0;
because then the whitespace matches how you're supposed to parse the
condition, and so the next person to read this code will have an easier
time of it.