Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 12:11:03 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Justin Hibbits <jhibbits@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Blocks runtime in the kernel Message-ID: <0f19b708-c167-b05e-1b0d-e4c1029a50c4@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <ZBSshsmKIo6VirT/@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20230316100611.4892008c@gonegalt.net> <ZBSshsmKIo6VirT/@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/17/23 11:08 AM, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 10:06:11AM -0400, Justin Hibbits wrote:
>> Most probably know I've been working on the IfAPI conversion of all
>> network drivers in order to hide the contents of `struct ifnet`. I'm
>> pretty much done with the development, and it's all in review.
>> However, there's one bit that I've thought is very clunky since I added
>> it, the if_foreach() iterator function, which iterates over all
>> interfaces in the current VNET, and calls a callback to operate on each
>> interface. I've noticed that oftentimes I end up with a 2 line
>> callback, which just calls if_foreach_addr_type(), so I end up with
>> just trivial callback functions, which seems like a waste.
>>
>> All that backstory to say, would it be beneficial to anyone else to
>> add a (very basic) blocks runtime to the kernel for doing things like
>> this? The rough change to the IfAPI becomes:
>>
>> int if_foreach_b(int (^)(if_t));
>>
>> __block int foo = 0;
>>
>> if_foreach_b(^(if_t ifp) {
>> if (if_getlinkstate(ifp) == LINK_STATE_UP)
>> foo++;
>> });
>>
>> The same could be done for other *_foreach KPIs as well, if this proves
>> out. I think I could have something working in the next several days.
>>
>> The only technical snag I see with this would be other compilers. I'm
>> not sure if GCC still supports blocks, it did at one point.
>
> I think two things make this a non-starter. First, GCC doesn't support
> this feature and I don't think we want to lose that for the reasons
> Warner outlines elsewhere. Second, it seems moderately likely that C2Y
> will include lambdas in some form which fills the same niche. This
> will further reduce the likelihood of blocks support being widespread
> (already extremely unlikely). At this point I think we just need to
> live with the clunky syntax. :(
Alternatively one could use C++. I think that would be an easier sell
than Blocks TBH. It's not hard to write the little bits you would need
to let you use a ranged-for for this (which I find more readable than the
lambda approach anyway).
If you don't need to perform cleanup actions when terminating an iteration
you could also provide helper functions that let you implement a
IF_FOREACH() wrapper macro that would function similar to TAILQ_FOREACH().
You would just need 'if_first()' and 'if_next()' helpers.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0f19b708-c167-b05e-1b0d-e4c1029a50c4>