From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX grant mapping Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:56:26 +0000 Message-ID: <53218EDA.8040904@citrix.com> References: <1394142511-14827-1-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@citrix.com> <1394142511-14827-5-git-send-email-zoltan.kiss@citrix.com> <1394706812.25873.28.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Zoltan Kiss , , , , , To: Ian Campbell Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1394706812.25873.28.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >> @@ -135,13 +146,31 @@ struct xenvif { >> pending_ring_idx_t pending_cons; >> u16 pending_ring[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; >> struct pending_tx_info pending_tx_info[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; >> + grant_handle_t grant_tx_handle[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; >> >> /* Coalescing tx requests before copying makes number of grant >> * copy ops greater or equal to number of slots required. In >> * worst case a tx request consumes 2 gnttab_copy. >> */ >> struct gnttab_copy tx_copy_ops[2*MAX_PENDING_REQS]; >> - >> + struct gnttab_map_grant_ref tx_map_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; >> + struct gnttab_unmap_grant_ref tx_unmap_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; > > I wonder if we should break some of these arrays into separate > allocations? Wasn't there a problem with sizeof(struct xenvif) at one > point? alloc_netdev() falls back to vmalloc() if the kmalloc failed so there's no need to split these structures. David