From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Kirsher Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 1/3 net-next] e1000: Allocate pm_qos_req as needed Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 01:58:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1428656287.2729.83.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> References: <99ad8b242a65a60e2a76e952b4c91de2b54a0013.1428622095.git.tgraf@suug.ch> <1428624503.2729.55.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> <1428640539.2729.67.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> <55278377.8030505@iogearbox.net> <20150410084856.GC23070@casper.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-cAV6ejsuBHu3mplXIwGy" Cc: Daniel Borkmann , netdev@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, davem@davemloft.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: Thomas Graf Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:3523 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753104AbbDJI6b (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2015 04:58:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150410084856.GC23070@casper.infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-cAV6ejsuBHu3mplXIwGy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 09:48 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 04/10/15 at 10:01am, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > On 04/10/2015 06:35 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > >On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 17:08 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > >>On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 01:43 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: > > >>>e1000 is the only driver requiring pm_qos_req, instead of causing > > >>>every device to waste up to 240 bytes. Allocate it for the specific > > >>>driver. > > >>> > > >>>Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf > > >>>--- > > >>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > >>> include/linux/netdevice.h | 2 +- > > >>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > >> > > >>Small nitpick, it is e1000e not e1000 that you are modifying. > > > > > >So other than the patch title and description referencing e1000 instea= d > > >of e1000e, patch looks fine. > > > > > >Acked-by: Jeff Kirsher > >=20 > > Thanks for working towards reducing struct net_device, that's awesome! > >=20 > > Wrt this patch, I'm wondering if that couldn't be pushed down into > > struct e1000_adapter entirely? >=20 > Sure, since I need to respin this anyway. Jeff are you OK with that? I am trying to think why we did not do it earlier, but I am not coming up with anything at the moment. So, go ahead. In the meantime, I will talk with Bruce Allan tomorrow to see if he remembers why we did not do it. --=-cAV6ejsuBHu3mplXIwGy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCgAGBQJVJ5CfAAoJEOVv75VaS+3ODNoQAIQJi9dDw1sjQMx/mZrc9nSK Z609bQRpCjrgcDV2PGbYk7nkoKLuvG4mCPOavgMRTtrQ9QRxAIYiI0XVUJsRd7B8 rQSNDReBlUOKobo+U+6fDao7D5WBJH7q5pfyABTHQcc1S0NqrXPbOw2WjrAGMTtB nn9EN47VshG1fLRmf06ic2++0PPoJtRtXOyKC1F8bFpREDZttabETpIzLSgSsR8w YeLFmJd8PJ49gJdRFubONrUTXOyXMKVLRrBlcEIIebGIM4yYp2hyBIZ0zaH1UGDh kqYeOx5niXhd+tNmLMKXA4ZJ8Rmc/2Li6wtU/6Zuc3Chmo/qoZPv84FlvkN0zasg ozIDmuT+9rhttnMpx5K0CwUbRWQkH+0EO/nBEdPfd4H1lLdfSE+jx2HRblymwXXg hf1TM1+A7Mqh/6DYYCD4ZHpYgTqjMppbpF38wkA6d/tNKTQb5dE/9CIydNHeBzui /Ku+T4e2e/J19ES96m4jrVaCNGm4S60SHPKWLyVcbhMrTgRFmk/QVbAU7bdv+VlP B5K2Oo2guXVoEi+aZxU4vzyi7UNKtRXFj2qka0zmsRa+aWGq4TE1SOvo9D414VXs FhHPUMQ+uL3kPJ7X7l7KLsBQpXBuTcBcypdMLjBs+vABF8cjPcRM/yDZhRgkAQZk j6IexRrkXekZANI8ulZr =ySBg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-cAV6ejsuBHu3mplXIwGy--