[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c6438a1-c613-a2fe-1113-5ce8d626a44c@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 05:21:08 +0000
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvmet: Reorder fields in 'struct nvmet_ns'
On 6/19/2023 11:08 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> 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
I believe this patch can still be applied as is on the top of nvme-6.5..
-ck
Powered by blists - more mailing lists