From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: Introduce new 10GbE driver for Intel 82598 based PCI Express adapters... Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:02:57 -0700 Message-ID: <46897611.9020207@intel.com> References: <4688F512.3030801@garzik.org> <20070702140958.5ea6571a@freepuppy.localdomain.hemminger.net> <20070702214238.GA7085@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , "Veeraiyan, Ayyappan" , Jeff Garzik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:47813 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755872AbXGBWDB (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:03:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070702214238.GA7085@infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 02:09:58PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> The patch is close to ready for 2.6.24 when this driver will need to show up. > > If intel manages to fix up the reamining issues I'd rather see it appear > in 2.6.23.. > >> Since I know Intel will be forced to backport this to older distro's. You >> would be best to have a single receive queue version when you have to make >> it work on the older code. > > But that'll require the single receiver queue version I guess. The > netdevice abuse is the only really major issue I see, although I'd of > course really like to see the driver getting rid of the bitfield abuse > aswell. 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 risks of bitmasks, so forgive me if I don't grasp the problem. Honestly, if this is really considered "Bad coding" (TM) then we need to fix these prominent abuses of it too. I count about 60 or so of these bitfields in drivers/net... (and countless more in other parts) ! Auke