From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: Introduce new 10GbE driver for Intel 82598 based PCI Express adapters... Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:16:20 -0400 Message-ID: <46897934.5040101@garzik.org> References: <4688F512.3030801@garzik.org> <20070702214238.GA7085@infradead.org> <46897611.9020207@intel.com> <200707030010.25431.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Kok, Auke" , Christoph Hellwig , Stephen Hemminger , "Veeraiyan, Ayyappan" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Michael Buesch Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:54939 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756323AbXGBWQ0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:16:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200707030010.25431.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Michael Buesch wrote: > 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. Actually, that's a good point. On several RISC architectures it certainly generates bigger code. Jeff