On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:47:33 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > Having per-driver grouping defines is a no-go. > > Without it, kdoc warns when I want to describe group fields =\ > > > Do you need the defines in the first place? > > They allow to describe CLs w/o repeating boilerplates like > > cacheline_group_begin(blah) __aligned(blah) > fields > cacheline_group_end(blah)
And you assert that your boilerplate is somehow nicer than this? See my reply to Przemek, I don't think so, and neither do other maintainers, judging by how the socket grouping was done. You can add new markers to include the align automatically too, etc. > > Are you sure the assert you're adding are not going to explode > > on some weird arch? Honestly, patch 5 feels like a little too > > I was adjusting and testing it a lot and CI finally started building > every arch with no issues some time ago, so yes, I'm sure. > 64-byte CL on 64-bit arch behaves the same everywhere, so the assertions > for it can be more strict. On other arches, the behaviour is the same as > how Eric asserts netdev cachelines in the core code. > > > much for a driver.. > > We had multiple situations when our team were optimizing the structure > layout and then someone added a new field and messed up the layout > again. So I ended up with strict assertions. I understand. Not 100% sure I agree but depends on the team, so okay. > Why is it too much if we have the same stuff for the netdev core? But we didn't add tcp_* macros and sock_* macros etc. Improve the stuff in cache.h is you think its worth it. And no struct_groups() please.
