Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 2/7] applier: extract tx boundary checks from applier_read_tx into a separate routine

[Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 03:24:12PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote:
> Introduce a new routine, set_next_tx_row(), which checks tx boundary
> violation and appends the new row to the current tx in case everything
> is ok.
> 
> set_next_tx_row() is extracted from applier_read_tx() because it's a
> common part of transaction assembly both for recovery and applier.
> 
> The only difference for recovery will be that the routine which's
> responsible for tx assembly won't read rows. It'll be a callback ran on
> each new row being read from WAL.
> 
> Prerequisite #5874
> Part-of #5566
> ---
>  src/box/applier.cc | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/box/applier.cc b/src/box/applier.cc
> index 326cf18d2..65afa5e98 100644
> --- a/src/box/applier.cc
> +++ b/src/box/applier.cc
> @@ -657,6 +657,64 @@ applier_read_tx_row(struct applier *applier)
>  	return tx_row;
>  }
>  
> +static inline int64_t
> +set_next_tx_row(struct stailq *rows, struct applier_tx_row *tx_row, int64_t tsn)

Serge, why it is "inline"? I propose to not use inline until really needed.
The compiler may ignore inline word, same time if function is small the
compiler may inline it as a part of optimisation stage.

Not a big deal, feel free to ignore, but I see "inline" is used too much all over the code :(

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html#the-inline-disease