[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0be882e-558a-9b1d-7514-0aad0080e08c@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 20:36:50 +0800
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] page_pool: don't use driver-set flags field
directly
On 2023/7/27 22:43, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>
> struct page_pool {
> struct page_pool_params p;
> - long pad;
> +
> + bool dma_map:1; /* Perform DMA mapping */
> + enum {
> + PP_DMA_SYNC_ACT_DISABLED = 0, /* Driver didn't ask to sync */
> + PP_DMA_SYNC_ACT_DO, /* Perform DMA sync ops */
> + } dma_sync_act:1;
> + bool page_frag:1; /* Allow page fragments */
>
Isn't it more common or better to just remove the flags field in
'struct page_pool_params' and pass the flags by parameter like
below, so that patch 4 is not needed?
struct page_pool *page_pool_create(const struct page_pool_params *params,
unsigned int flags);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists