[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53218EDA.8040904@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:56:26 +0000
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <jonathan.davies@...rix.com>,
<wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next v7 4/9] xen-netback: Introduce TX
grant mapping
On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>> @@ -135,13 +146,31 @@ struct xenvif {
>> pending_ring_idx_t pending_cons;
>> u16 pending_ring[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
>> struct pending_tx_info pending_tx_info[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
>> + grant_handle_t grant_tx_handle[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
>>
>> /* Coalescing tx requests before copying makes number of grant
>> * copy ops greater or equal to number of slots required. In
>> * worst case a tx request consumes 2 gnttab_copy.
>> */
>> struct gnttab_copy tx_copy_ops[2*MAX_PENDING_REQS];
>> -
>> + struct gnttab_map_grant_ref tx_map_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
>> + struct gnttab_unmap_grant_ref tx_unmap_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS];
>
> I wonder if we should break some of these arrays into separate
> allocations? Wasn't there a problem with sizeof(struct xenvif) at one
> point?
alloc_netdev() falls back to vmalloc() if the kmalloc failed so there's
no need to split these structures.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists