On 2/22/2024 5:04 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
From: Alexander Lobakin <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:53:25 +0100
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.
Since you're sending v6 anyway, could you maybe move virtchnl function
declarations to new idpf_virtchnl.h to make idpf.h a bit less heavy?
Something like I did in this commit[0].
I can certainly do that as well, makes sense to me. I agree idpf.h is
overloaded. Thanks!
+
+/**
+ * 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
+ */
[...]
[0]
https://github.com/alobakin/linux/commit/0c8fae557f4e6ec1ae4353a68c9c5c9c2b70c5e9
Thanks,
Olek
