[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e74dedeb-8fb0-8abf-5b14-1aae8e1462d2@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 20:08:38 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvmet: Reorder fields in 'struct nvmet_ns'
Le 28/04/2023 à 01:07, Chaitanya Kulkarni a écrit :
> On 4/27/23 16:01, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/27/23 4:59?PM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On 4/27/23 12:47, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>>> Group some variables based on their sizes to reduce holes.
>>>> On x86_64, this shrinks the size of 'struct nvmet_ns' from 520 to 512
>>>> bytes.
>>>>
>>> Although this looks good, we at least need to document what
>>> happens on other arch(s) which are not mentioned in the
>>> commit log ? is there a possibility that someone might come
>>> up with the contradictory data in future for the arch(s) which
>>> arch that are not mentioned here ?
>> The change is certainly not going to make things _worse_ for any arch,
>> so I think that's somewhat of a pointless exercise and an unreasonable
>> ask for something that makes sense on 64-bit arm/x86 and saves half the
>> space.
>>
>
> disregard my comment, looks good...
>
> Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>
>
> -ck
>
>
Hi,
All my other nvmet patches have reached -next today, but this one seems
to be missing.
So this is a gentle reminder, in case it got lost somewhere.
CJ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists