From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: Introduce new 10GbE driver for Intel 82598 based =?iso-8859-1?q?PCI=09Express?= adapters... Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:10:24 +0200 Message-ID: <200707030010.25431.mb@bu3sch.de> References: <4688F512.3030801@garzik.org> <20070702214238.GA7085@infradead.org> <46897611.9020207@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Stephen Hemminger , "Veeraiyan, Ayyappan" , Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: "Kok, Auke" Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:39785 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756105AbXGBWLP (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:11:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46897611.9020207@intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 03 July 2007 00:02:57 Kok, Auke wrote: > well, FWIW when I started looking at adding these flags I looked in various > subsystems in the kernel and picked an implementation that suited. Guess what > pci.h has? ...: > > unsigned int msi_enabled:1; > unsigned int msix_enabled:1; > > this is literally where I copied the example from > > I suppose I can fix those, but I really don't understand what all the fuzz is > about here. We're only conserving memory and staying far away from the real I'm not sure if these bitfields actually _do_ conserve memory. Generated code gets bigger (need bitwise masks and stuff). Code also needs memory. It probably only conserves memory, if the structure is instanciated a lot. -- Greetings Michael.