[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240925180017.82891-1-jdamato@fastly.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:00:16 +0000
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org (moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS),
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list),
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: [RFC net-next 0/1] idpf: Don't hardcode napi_struct size
Greetings:
While working on an RFC which adds fields to napi_struct [1], I got a
warning from the kernel test robot about tripping an assertion in idpf
which seems to hardcode the size of napi_struct. The assertion was
triggered after applying patch 3 from the RFC [2].
I'm submitting this as an RFC so the Intel folks have time to take a
look and request changes, but I plan to submit this next week when
net-next reopens.
I did not want to the include this change in my RFC v4 because I wanted
to keep the review of that RFC focused on the in core work instead, so I
was hoping Intel would be OK to merge this (or a change which
accomplishes the same thing).
Please note: I do not have this hardware and thus have only compile
tested this.
Thanks,
Joe
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240912100738.16567-1-jdamato@fastly.com/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240912100738.16567-6-jdamato@fastly.com/
Joe Damato (1):
idpf: Don't hard code napi_struct size
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_txrx.h | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists