[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240411074709.249b3482@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:47:09 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern
<dsahern@...nel.org>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Andrew Lunn
<andrew@...n.ch>, <nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 7/7] netdev_features: convert
NETIF_F_FCOE_MTU to IFF_FCOE_MTU
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28:08 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > Any reason not to make it a bitfield? I haven't looked at the longer
> > patches but this one seems to be used like a basic bool.
>
> This whole enum could be made as bitfields, should we convert it? Would
> be a big patch tho ._.
As always, I haven't investigated closely :) But my thinking was -
we are at 34 bits in priv. We just need to convert 2 of them to
a bitfield, pick two with fewest uses. Then we can downgrade
the field to u32 from ulonglong, and we can carry on adding bitfields?
> > But this definitely _is_ a uAPI change, right?
>
> Why?
It will be user visible, ethtool -k is losing a field.
Whether that's actually going to break anything depends on how silly
user space is.
As Andrew pointed out, definitely something that should be called out
in the commit message.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists