From: Alan Brady <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:16:37 -0800
> On 2/21/2024 4:15 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote: >> From: Alan Brady <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:49:40 -0800 >> >>> This starts refactoring how virtchnl messages are handled by adding a >>> transaction manager (idpf_vc_xn_manager). [...] >> >> Sorry for not noticing this before, but this struct can be local to >> idpf_virtchnl.c. >> > > Nice catch, I can definitely move this. I'm also considering though, all > of these structs I'm adding here are better suited in idpf_virtchnl.c > all together. I think the main thing preventing that is the > idpf_vc_xn_manager field in idpf_adapter. Would it be overkill to make > the field in idpf_adapter a pointer so I can forward declare and kalloc > it? I think I can then move everything to idpf_virtchnl.c. Or do you see > a better alternative? Or is it not worth the effort? Thanks! Since it's not hotpath, you can make it a pointer and move everything to virtchnl.c, sounds nice. > >>> + >>> +/** >>> + * struct idpf_vc_xn_manager - Manager for tracking transactions >>> + * @ring: backing and lookup for transactions >>> + * @free_xn_bm: bitmap for free transactions >>> + * @xn_bm_lock: make bitmap access synchronous where necessary >>> + * @salt: used to make cookie unique every message >>> + */ >> >> [...] Thanks, Olek
