From: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS"
<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/1] idpf: Don't hard code napi_struct size
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 08:46:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zv68Q4ur4-ZVTmaL@LQ3V64L9R2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b7228426-1f70-4e36-9622-c9b69bfe5be9@intel.com>
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:35:54PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
[...]
> napi_struct is the only generic struct whichs size is hardcoded in the
> macros (struct dim is already sizeof()ed, as well as cpumask_var_t), so
> I'm fine with the change you proposed in your first RFC -- I mean
>
> libeth_cacheline_set_assert(struct idpf_q_vector, 112,
> - 424 + 2 * sizeof(struct dim),
> + 24 + sizeof(struct napi_struct) +
> + 2 * sizeof(struct dim),
> 8 + sizeof(cpumask_var_t));
So you are saying to drop the other #defines I added in the RFC and
just embed a sizeof? I just want to be clear so that I send a v2
that'll be correct.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-03 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-25 18:00 [RFC net-next 0/1] idpf: Don't hardcode napi_struct size Joe Damato
2024-09-25 18:00 ` [RFC net-next 1/1] idpf: Don't hard code " Joe Damato
2024-09-25 20:33 ` Simon Horman
2024-09-30 12:33 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-30 12:38 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-09-30 13:10 ` Przemek Kitszel
2024-09-30 22:17 ` Joe Damato
2024-10-01 13:14 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-10-01 14:44 ` Joe Damato
2024-10-02 17:17 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-10-03 13:35 ` Alexander Lobakin
2024-10-03 15:46 ` Joe Damato [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Zv68Q4ur4-ZVTmaL@LQ3V64L9R2 \
--to=jdamato@fastly.com \
--cc=aleksander.lobakin@intel.com \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox