From: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS"
<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC net-next 1/1] idpf: Don't hard code napi_struct size
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 08:46:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zv68Q4ur4-ZVTmaL@LQ3V64L9R2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b7228426-1f70-4e36-9622-c9b69bfe5be9@intel.com>
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:35:54PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
[...]
> napi_struct is the only generic struct whichs size is hardcoded in the
> macros (struct dim is already sizeof()ed, as well as cpumask_var_t), so
> I'm fine with the change you proposed in your first RFC -- I mean
>
> libeth_cacheline_set_assert(struct idpf_q_vector, 112,
> - 424 + 2 * sizeof(struct dim),
> + 24 + sizeof(struct napi_struct) +
> + 2 * sizeof(struct dim),
> 8 + sizeof(cpumask_var_t));
So you are saying to drop the other #defines I added in the RFC and
just embed a sizeof? I just want to be clear so that I send a v2
that'll be correct.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS"
<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/1] idpf: Don't hard code napi_struct size
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 08:46:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zv68Q4ur4-ZVTmaL@LQ3V64L9R2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b7228426-1f70-4e36-9622-c9b69bfe5be9@intel.com>
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:35:54PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
[...]
> napi_struct is the only generic struct whichs size is hardcoded in the
> macros (struct dim is already sizeof()ed, as well as cpumask_var_t), so
> I'm fine with the change you proposed in your first RFC -- I mean
>
> libeth_cacheline_set_assert(struct idpf_q_vector, 112,
> - 424 + 2 * sizeof(struct dim),
> + 24 + sizeof(struct napi_struct) +
> + 2 * sizeof(struct dim),
> 8 + sizeof(cpumask_var_t));
So you are saying to drop the other #defines I added in the RFC and
just embed a sizeof? I just want to be clear so that I send a v2
that'll be correct.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-03 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-25 18:00 [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC net-next 0/1] idpf: Don't hardcode napi_struct size Joe Damato
2024-09-25 18:00 ` Joe Damato
2024-09-25 18:00 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC net-next 1/1] idpf: Don't hard code " Joe Damato
2024-09-25 18:00 ` Joe Damato
2024-09-25 20:33 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Simon Horman
2024-09-25 20:33 ` Simon Horman
2024-09-30 12:33 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-30 12:33 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-30 12:38 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-30 12:38 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-30 13:10 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Przemek Kitszel
2024-09-30 13:10 ` Przemek Kitszel
2024-09-30 22:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2024-09-30 22:17 ` Joe Damato
2024-10-01 13:14 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Lobakin
2024-10-01 13:14 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-10-01 14:44 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2024-10-01 14:44 ` Joe Damato
2024-10-02 17:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2024-10-02 17:17 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-10-03 13:35 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Lobakin
2024-10-03 13:35 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-10-03 15:46 ` Joe Damato [this message]
2024-10-03 15:46 ` Joe Damato
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Zv68Q4ur4-ZVTmaL@LQ3V64L9R2 \
--to=jdamato@fastly.com \
--cc=aleksander.lobakin@intel.com \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.