Page MenuHomeFreeBSD
Differential D44334

riscv: remove more riscv64sf support
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by brooks on Mar 12 2024, 11:20 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Mar 21, 10:24 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 16 2025, 10:47 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 16 2025, 6:25 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 4 2025, 11:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 29 2024, 5:43 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 29 2024, 4:41 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 29 2024, 4:31 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 28 2024, 10:15 PM
View All 85 Files
Subscribers
imp

Details

Reviewers
jrtc27
jhb
imp
Group Reviewers
riscv
Commits
rG312a05c39e5f: riscv: remove more riscv64sf support
Summary

Remove a few more bits of riscv64sf support in libc and libm.

Fixes: 1ca12bd927d7 Remove the riscv64sf architecture.

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

brooks created this revision.Mar 12 2024, 11:20 PM
Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald TranscriptMar 12 2024, 11:20 PM
brooks requested review of this revision.Mar 12 2024, 11:20 PM
Harbormaster completed remote builds in B56570: Diff 135681.Mar 12 2024, 11:20 PM
brooks retitled this revision from riscv: remove a more riscv64sf support to riscv: remove more riscv64sf support.Mar 12 2024, 11:21 PM
brooks added a parent revision: D44331: msun/riscv: limit exposure of fegetexcept.
brooks added a reviewer: jhb.
jrtc27 added inline comments.Mar 12 2024, 11:23 PM
lib/msun/riscv/fenv.h
73–76

Don't think we need to spend 10 lines of code to make the errors marginally more friendly. Arguably even this is unnecessary; you'll get an error from the linker if you mix different float ABIs, and crt* are hard float.

brooks updated this revision to Diff 135682.Mar 12 2024, 11:29 PM

Drop __riscv_float_abi_soft in fenv.h

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B56571: Diff 135682.Mar 12 2024, 11:29 PM
brooks marked an inline comment as done.Mar 12 2024, 11:30 PM
imp accepted this revision.Mar 13 2024, 1:57 AM

I think tis is good... not sure about jrtc's comments

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 13 2024, 1:57 AM
jhb added inline comments.Mar 19 2024, 5:13 PM
lib/msun/riscv/fenv.h
73–76

Yeah, I would just go with Jess' suggestion here.

brooks added inline comments.Mar 19 2024, 5:55 PM
lib/msun/riscv/fenv.h
73–76

So delete the whole block?

jhb added inline comments.Mar 19 2024, 7:52 PM
lib/msun/riscv/fenv.h
73–76

Either that or the suggested code block in Jess's comment that has a single #ifndef around an #error. I don't have a strong preference.

brooks mentioned this in D44331: msun/riscv: limit exposure of fegetexcept.Mar 19 2024, 9:05 PM
brooks updated this revision to Diff 135962.Mar 19 2024, 9:13 PM
  • Squash with D44331
  • Reduce ABI checks as suggested
This revision now requires review to proceed.Mar 19 2024, 9:13 PM
Harbormaster completed remote builds in B56698: Diff 135962.Mar 19 2024, 9:14 PM
jhb accepted this revision.Mar 21 2024, 6:51 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 21 2024, 6:51 PM
Closed by commit rG312a05c39e5f: riscv: remove more riscv64sf support (authored by brooks). · Explain WhyMar 21 2024, 11:50 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
brooks added a commit: rG312a05c39e5f: riscv: remove more riscv64sf support.

Revision Contents
Changeset List

PathSize
lib/
libc/
riscv/
gen/
10 lines
msun/
riscv/
1 line
30 lines
8 lines

Diff 136058

View Options

lib/libc/riscv/gen/flt_rounds.c

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 1,629 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines#endif
* fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize * fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize
* timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection * timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection
* was established. * was established.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) { if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) {
to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset; to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset;
if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) { if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) {
to.to_tsecr = 0; to.to_tsecr = 0;
} else if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) {
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
} }
} }
/* /*
* Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case * Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case
* for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache. * for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache.
* According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN> * According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN>
* or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled. * or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled.
* XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up. * XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up.
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 136 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines if (tlen == 0) {
(to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 && (to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 &&
TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) { TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) {
/* /*
* This is a pure ack for outstanding data. * This is a pure ack for outstanding data.
*/ */
TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack); TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack);
/* /*
* "bad retransmit" recovery without timestamps. * "bad retransmit" recovery.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 && if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID && tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 && tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin)) { (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR); cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
}
/* /*
* Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt. * Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt.
* *
* Some boxes send broken timestamp replies * Some boxes send broken timestamp replies
rscheffUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses?

I believe in other parts we do it ((true & x & y & z) | (false & a & b &c )) - as multiline checks;

I don't like them both get executed "always", so at the very least, an "else" just before the 2nd if would be good.

The logic looks ok to me.

rscheff: Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses? I believe in other…
glebiusUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as one wants TOF_TS and other !TOF_TS, so cc_cong_signal() can be executed only once. My first reading was that it is intentionally written this way cause we may want two calls into cc_cong_singal(), so it was a misleading reading.

Oh, the upper level embracing if can also be merged into one big clause:

if ((tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
    tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
    tp->t_badrxtwin != 0) &&
    (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
    (to.to_tsecr != 0) &&
    TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
    ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
    TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
        cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);

This will also fix lines longer than 79 chars. IMHO, we may slightly violate style(9) and add single space indentation to highlight our three main large blocks (a && (b || c)).

glebius: I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as…
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.

tuexen: Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.

tuexen: It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.
* during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore * during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore
* timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a * timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a
* huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer. * huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 && if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr) { to.to_tsecr) {
uint32_t t; uint32_t t;
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 2,424 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines
View Options

lib/msun/riscv/Symbol.map

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 1,629 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines#endif
* fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize * fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize
* timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection * timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection
* was established. * was established.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) { if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) {
to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset; to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset;
if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) { if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) {
to.to_tsecr = 0; to.to_tsecr = 0;
} else if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) {
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
} }
} }
/* /*
* Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case * Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case
* for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache. * for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache.
* According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN> * According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN>
* or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled. * or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled.
* XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up. * XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up.
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 136 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines if (tlen == 0) {
(to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 && (to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 &&
TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) { TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) {
/* /*
* This is a pure ack for outstanding data. * This is a pure ack for outstanding data.
*/ */
TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack); TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack);
/* /*
* "bad retransmit" recovery without timestamps. * "bad retransmit" recovery.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 && if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID && tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 && tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin)) { (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR); cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
}
/* /*
* Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt. * Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt.
* *
* Some boxes send broken timestamp replies * Some boxes send broken timestamp replies
rscheffUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses?

I believe in other parts we do it ((true & x & y & z) | (false & a & b &c )) - as multiline checks;

I don't like them both get executed "always", so at the very least, an "else" just before the 2nd if would be good.

The logic looks ok to me.

rscheff: Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses? I believe in other…
glebiusUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as one wants TOF_TS and other !TOF_TS, so cc_cong_signal() can be executed only once. My first reading was that it is intentionally written this way cause we may want two calls into cc_cong_singal(), so it was a misleading reading.

Oh, the upper level embracing if can also be merged into one big clause:

if ((tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
    tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
    tp->t_badrxtwin != 0) &&
    (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
    (to.to_tsecr != 0) &&
    TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
    ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
    TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
        cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);

This will also fix lines longer than 79 chars. IMHO, we may slightly violate style(9) and add single space indentation to highlight our three main large blocks (a && (b || c)).

glebius: I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as…
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.

tuexen: Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.

tuexen: It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.
* during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore * during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore
* timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a * timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a
* huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer. * huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 && if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr) { to.to_tsecr) {
uint32_t t; uint32_t t;
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 2,424 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines
View Options

lib/msun/riscv/fenv.h

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 1,629 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines#endif
* fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize * fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize
* timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection * timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection
* was established. * was established.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) { if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) {
to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset; to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset;
if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) { if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) {
to.to_tsecr = 0; to.to_tsecr = 0;
} else if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) {
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
} }
} }
/* /*
* Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case * Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case
* for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache. * for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache.
* According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN> * According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN>
* or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled. * or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled.
* XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up. * XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up.
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 136 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines if (tlen == 0) {
(to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 && (to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 &&
TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) { TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) {
/* /*
* This is a pure ack for outstanding data. * This is a pure ack for outstanding data.
*/ */
TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack); TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack);
/* /*
* "bad retransmit" recovery without timestamps. * "bad retransmit" recovery.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 && if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID && tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 && tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin)) { (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR); cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
}
/* /*
* Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt. * Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt.
* *
* Some boxes send broken timestamp replies * Some boxes send broken timestamp replies
rscheffUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses?

I believe in other parts we do it ((true & x & y & z) | (false & a & b &c )) - as multiline checks;

I don't like them both get executed "always", so at the very least, an "else" just before the 2nd if would be good.

The logic looks ok to me.

rscheff: Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses? I believe in other…
glebiusUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as one wants TOF_TS and other !TOF_TS, so cc_cong_signal() can be executed only once. My first reading was that it is intentionally written this way cause we may want two calls into cc_cong_singal(), so it was a misleading reading.

Oh, the upper level embracing if can also be merged into one big clause:

if ((tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
    tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
    tp->t_badrxtwin != 0) &&
    (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
    (to.to_tsecr != 0) &&
    TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
    ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
    TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
        cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);

This will also fix lines longer than 79 chars. IMHO, we may slightly violate style(9) and add single space indentation to highlight our three main large blocks (a && (b || c)).

glebius: I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as…
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.

tuexen: Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.

tuexen: It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.
* during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore * during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore
* timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a * timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a
* huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer. * huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 && if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr) { to.to_tsecr) {
uint32_t t; uint32_t t;
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 2,424 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines
View Options

lib/msun/riscv/fenv.c

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 1,629 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines#endif
* fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize * fall back to non RFC1323 RTT calculation. Normalize
* timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection * timestamp if syncookies were used when this connection
* was established. * was established.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) { if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) && (to.to_tsecr != 0)) {
to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset; to.to_tsecr -= tp->ts_offset;
if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) { if (TSTMP_GT(to.to_tsecr, tcp_ts_getticks())) {
to.to_tsecr = 0; to.to_tsecr = 0;
} else if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) {
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
} }
} }
/* /*
* Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case * Process options only when we get SYN/ACK back. The SYN case
* for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache. * for incoming connections is handled in tcp_syncache.
* According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN> * According to RFC1323 the window field in a SYN (i.e., a <SYN>
* or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled. * or <SYN,ACK>) segment itself is never scaled.
* XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up. * XXX this is traditional behavior, may need to be cleaned up.
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 136 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines if (tlen == 0) {
(to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 && (to.to_flags & TOF_SACK) == 0 &&
TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) { TAILQ_EMPTY(&tp->snd_holes)) {
/* /*
* This is a pure ack for outstanding data. * This is a pure ack for outstanding data.
*/ */
TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack); TCPSTAT_INC(tcps_predack);
/* /*
* "bad retransmit" recovery without timestamps. * "bad retransmit" recovery.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 && if (tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID && tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 && tp->t_badrxtwin != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin)) { (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr != 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR); cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);
}
/* /*
* Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt. * Recalculate the transmit timer / rtt.
* *
* Some boxes send broken timestamp replies * Some boxes send broken timestamp replies
rscheffUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses?

I believe in other parts we do it ((true & x & y & z) | (false & a & b &c )) - as multiline checks;

I don't like them both get executed "always", so at the very least, an "else" just before the 2nd if would be good.

The logic looks ok to me.

rscheff: Any specific reason to write the or statement as two separate if clauses? I believe in other…
glebiusUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as one wants TOF_TS and other !TOF_TS, so cc_cong_signal() can be executed only once. My first reading was that it is intentionally written this way cause we may want two calls into cc_cong_singal(), so it was a misleading reading.

Oh, the upper level embracing if can also be merged into one big clause:

if ((tp->t_rxtshift == 1 &&
    tp->t_flags & TF_PREVVALID &&
    tp->t_badrxtwin != 0) &&
    (((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
    (to.to_tsecr != 0) &&
    TSTMP_LT(to.to_tsecr, tp->t_badrxtwin)) ||
    ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) == 0 &&
    TSTMP_LT(ticks, tp->t_badrxtwin))))
        cc_cong_signal(tp, th, CC_RTO_ERR);

This will also fix lines longer than 79 chars. IMHO, we may slightly violate style(9) and add single space indentation to highlight our three main large blocks (a && (b || c)).

glebius: I agree with Richard, better one complex if clause. The two clauses are mutually exclusive as…
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.

tuexen: Now using one and two spaces of indentation to make the expression more readable.
tuexenAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
Inline Actions

It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.

tuexen: It was a try to break things up for improved readability by humans.
* during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore * during the SYN+ACK phase, ignore
* timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a * timestamps of 0 or we could calculate a
* huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer. * huge RTT and blow up the retransmit timer.
*/ */
if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 && if ((to.to_flags & TOF_TS) != 0 &&
to.to_tsecr) { to.to_tsecr) {
uint32_t t; uint32_t t;
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 2,424 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines