From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (mail-lj1-f195.google.com
 [209.85.208.195])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80264696C3
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon,  6 Apr 2020 11:39:05 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id f20so13752725ljm.0
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon, 06 Apr 2020 01:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:39:04 +0300
From: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200406083904.GB12472@atlas>
References: <cover.1585565637.git.sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
 <3162d52a68b95a43a0756dd2e03e4418dd80eafa.1585565637.git.sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
 <0f687ed6-2a15-6b1b-1c6e-f98814f9e162@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0f687ed6-2a15-6b1b-1c6e-f98814f9e162@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v5 1/4] vclock: add an ability to
 reset individual clock components
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

* Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> [20/04/05 05:06]:
> > +void
> > +vclock_reset(struct vclock *vclock, uint32_t replica_id, int64_t lsn)
> 
> This is probably already discussed, but why do we have general
> reset for arbitrary replica_id+lsn, and yet we have specialized
> copy_ignore0? Why this function was not called vclock_reset0() with
> replica_id == 0 and lsn == 0 always?

It's historical. I also suggest the function should be inlined and
optimized into callers.
> 
> > +{
> > +	assert(lsn >= 0);
> > +	assert(replica_id < VCLOCK_MAX);
> > +	vclock->signature -= vclock_get(vclock, replica_id);
> > +	if (lsn == 0) {
> > +		vclock->map &= ~(1 << replica_id);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +	vclock->lsn[replica_id] = lsn;
> > +	vclock->map |= 1 << replica_id;
> > +	vclock->signature += lsn;
> > +}

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia