Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Efficiency TODO in endpoint.rs #4599

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 8, 2024
Merged

Conversation

andr3wy
Copy link
Contributor

@andr3wy andr3wy commented May 7, 2024

Changes

-replace inefficient for loop with rust native function
...

Reason

Address a todo as is explained in #3273
...

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • The description of changes is clear and encompassing.
  • Any required documentation changes (code and docs) are included in this
    PR.
  • API changes follow the Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • User-facing changes are mentioned in CHANGELOG.md.
  • All added/changed functionality is tested.
  • New TODOs link to an issue.
  • Commits meet
    contribution quality standards.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

@andr3wy andr3wy force-pushed the 3273 branch 2 times, most recently from 3abb58a to 89471be Compare May 7, 2024 03:10
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 7, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.13%. Comparing base (2bbbf0f) to head (d6bfdb7).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4599      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.13%   82.13%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         255      255              
  Lines       31269    31267       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        25684    25682       -2     
  Misses       5585     5585              
Flag Coverage Δ
4.14-c5n.metal 79.63% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
4.14-c7g.metal ?
4.14-m5n.metal 79.62% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
4.14-m6a.metal 78.85% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
4.14-m6g.metal 76.68% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
4.14-m6i.metal 79.61% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
4.14-m7g.metal 76.68% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-c5n.metal 82.15% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-c7g.metal ?
5.10-m5n.metal 82.14% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6a.metal 81.44% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6g.metal 79.46% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m6i.metal 82.13% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7g.metal 79.46% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-c5n.metal 82.14% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-c7g.metal ?
6.1-m5n.metal 82.13% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6a.metal 81.44% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6g.metal 79.45% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6i.metal 82.13% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7g.metal 79.45% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice improvement! As with #4601, could you squash all the commit and make sure the style tests pass (./tools/devtool checkstyle)? Thanks!

@andr3wy
Copy link
Contributor Author

andr3wy commented May 7, 2024

Style resolved and commits squashed.

Replaced inefficient for loop with rust native function in endpoint.rs.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Yao <andr3wy@gmail.com>
@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label May 8, 2024
@roypat roypat merged commit 9839263 into firecracker-microvm:main May 8, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants