On 7/12/15 2:50 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 21:39, Aric Stewart aric@codeweavers.com wrote:
+typedef struct __ReportRingBuffer
Did you borrow this from somewhere? Identifiers starting with double underscore are reserved. (And using a single underscore instead isn't much better.) The naming is also inconsistent with the existing code.
No, I wrote it all. I did not write it directly integrated. I wrote it with an eye just to its own internal constancy. The renaming of the struct like that was recommended to me by another developer. I can change it.
And I have to say that goes for much of the rest of the series as well. There seems to be no consistent style from one patch to the next, and sometimes within the same structure. (E.g. __WINE_ELEMENT, __WINE_HID_REPORT, etc.) And of course most of this patch is unused code until patch 5/5 when RingBuffer_Create() is actually called.
Yeah, the trick partly is there is a lot of ground work to do. Yes, most of these patches are not used until later patches. But I need to build that ground work so that the later patches work and it is not all introduced in one mammoth patch.
Clearly I need to install a style checker for myself.
+struct __ReportRingBuffer* RingBuffer_Create(UINT buffer_size) +{
- ReportRingBuffer *ring;
- ring = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, sizeof(*ring));
- if (!ring)
return NULL;- ring->start = ring->end = 0;
- ring->size = 32;
- ring->buffer_size = buffer_size;
- ring->pointer_alloc = 5;
- ring->pointers = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, sizeof(int) * 5);
- memset(ring->pointers, 0xff, sizeof(int) * 5);
- ring->buffer = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, buffer_size * ring->size);
- InitializeCriticalSection(&ring->lock);
- ring->lock.DebugInfo->Spare[0] = (DWORD_PTR)(__FILE__ ": RingBuffer.lock");
- return ring;
+}
Why handle allocation failure for "ring", but not for "ring->pointers" and "ring->buffer"? Why did you pick "5" for the initial size of "ring->pointers"? Seems like an odd choice.
Clearly this code needs this review. Thank you for helping.
5 was picked arbitrarily. I guess 2 or any other number would be just fine.
+VOID RingBuffer_Destroy(struct __ReportRingBuffer *ring)
Why use "VOID"? Are you concerned "void" may not be available?
No, this is mostly because I did try to standardize my code a bit to use the VOID identifier instead of the void identifier, so clearly made the wrong choice there.
- if (size < 2 || size > 256 || size == ring->size)
return;What's special about 2 and 256? And if this does nothing, why would you ever call the function like that?
Those are limits on the ring buffer stated in MSDN for HID ring buffers. IOCTL_SET_NUM_DEVICE_INPUT_BUFFERS sets that value.
- new_buffer = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, ring->buffer_size * size);
- HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, ring->buffer);
- ring->buffer = new_buffer;
Why bother with "new_buffer" if you're not going to handle failures?
Because I should be handling failures and clearly I missed that.
-aric