Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v5 01/10 iwl-next] idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager

[Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>]

From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:16:37 -0800

> On 2/21/2024 4:15 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@intel.com>
>> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:49:40 -0800
>>
>>> This starts refactoring how virtchnl messages are handled by adding a
>>> transaction manager (idpf_vc_xn_manager).

[...]

>>
>> Sorry for not noticing this before, but this struct can be local to
>> idpf_virtchnl.c.
>>
> 
> Nice catch, I can definitely move this. I'm also considering though, all
> of these structs I'm adding here are better suited in idpf_virtchnl.c
> all together. I think the main thing preventing that is the
> idpf_vc_xn_manager field in idpf_adapter. Would it be overkill to make
> the field in idpf_adapter a pointer so I can forward declare and kalloc
> it? I think I can then move everything to idpf_virtchnl.c. Or do you see
> a better alternative? Or is it not worth the effort? Thanks!

Since it's not hotpath, you can make it a pointer and move everything to
virtchnl.c, sounds nice.

> 
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct idpf_vc_xn_manager - Manager for tracking transactions
>>> + * @ring: backing and lookup for transactions
>>> + * @free_xn_bm: bitmap for free transactions
>>> + * @xn_bm_lock: make bitmap access synchronous where necessary
>>> + * @salt: used to make cookie unique every message
>>> + */
>>
>> [...]

Thanks,
Olek