From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <skaplun@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp50.i.mail.ru (smtp50.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.110])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B50642F4AD
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu,  2 Jul 2020 22:41:00 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:40:48 +0300
From: Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200702194048.GA32264@root>
References: <20200629203134.30177-1-skaplun@tarantool.org>
 <20200702155347.GJ2256@grain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200702155347.GJ2256@grain>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [DRAFT v1] replication: track information
	about replica
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: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>

Hi! Thanks for the review!

On 02.07.20, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:31:34PM +0300, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> ...
> >  
> > +static int
> > +relay_on_state_f(struct trigger *trigger, void *event)
> > +{
> 
> Sergey, I'll review the patch with more attention tomorrow, still
> here are some notes which I can point early.
> 
>  - please don't name the trigger function with _f postfix, we usually
>    do this for cord thread runners (I know here are a few exceptions
>    but they are simply misnamed)
> 

Yup, thanks!

> > +	struct relay *relay = (struct relay *)event;
> > +	(void)trigger;
> 
> You can easily exit early
> 
> 	if (relay_get_state(relay) == RELAY_OFF)
> 		return 0;
> 
> shifting the rest of the code left. Still up to you I do not insist.
> 

Nice point! Early return looks much better!

> 
> Do we really need to call diag_raise() here?
> 
> > +		int rc;
> > +		switch (relay_get_state(relay)) {
> ...
> > +		}
> > +		if (rc != 0)
> > +			diag_raise();
> 
> And here. IIRC usually triggers simply return -1 on error.
> The left of the patch is trimmed for now.

I think we should not raise an error inside relay. Is say_error enough
if something goes wrong?

I will send new version with separate letter.

-- 
Best regards,
Sergey Kaplun