Обсуждение: [PATCH] aio: Refactor to deduplicate shared and local completion callbacks

Hi,

I've observed that the functions `pgaio_io_call_complete_shared()` and` pgaio_io_call_complete_local()` contain nearly
identicalcode, 
 
with only minor differences in initialization and callback selection. 
This code duplication was previously noted with an XXX comment.
I propose extracting the common logic into a new internal function `pgaio_io_call_complete_internal()`, 
which uses a boolean parameter to distinguish between the two code paths. 
What do you think of this approach?

--
Regards,
Man Zeng
www.openhalo.org

Hi,

On 2026-01-02 20:51:14 +0800, zengman wrote:
> I've observed that the functions `pgaio_io_call_complete_shared()` and`
> pgaio_io_call_complete_local()` contain nearly identical code, with only
> minor differences in initialization and callback selection.  This code
> duplication was previously noted with an XXX comment.

> I propose extracting the common logic into a new internal function
> `pgaio_io_call_complete_internal()`, which uses a boolean parameter to
> distinguish between the two code paths.  What do you think of this approach?

It doesn't really seem to improve things sufficiently for my taste. If you
don't remove comments that are actually important, like "Note that we don't
save the result", the code doesn't even get shorter. And it's not like the
function afterwards is more generic, since it encodes all the knowledge about
the different callback kinds.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

> It doesn't really seem to improve things sufficiently for my taste. If you
> don't remove comments that are actually important, like "Note that we don't
> save the result", the code doesn't even get shorter. And it's not like the
> function afterwards is more generic, since it encodes all the knowledge about
> the different callback kinds.

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll think of a better approach.
Thanks for the guidance.

--
Regards,
Man Zeng
www.openhalo.org