On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:07 PM Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com> wrote: >> it is on a slow path. 448 is OK. > > > >Ah yes, this is for the ctf description. > >Could it be changed to rely on dynamic allocations and we simply remove this > >limit? > Changing it to dynamic allocation is difficult because if we do this then > every time memory is to reallocated. > So IMO, It is okay to keep it static with enough size.
Ok. I will take this as a ack from both Jerin and you and push with the suggested commitlog. -- David Marchand
