> > > > While I don't mind, you could have argued is that we're not > > > > removing enough, not too much. > > > > I.e., perhaps the rdma_msix_* fields should also have been > > > > ifdef-ed instead. [in which case this solution would not have > > > > worked] > > > > > > That would add even more #ifdefs though. > > > > I agree. Although I'm never clear on the guidelines for the tradeoff - > > How much memory/code is considered too much so that you'd have To > > ifdef code out instead of 'wasting'? > > [I obviously don't claim 64 bytes of memory hit that threshold] > > I don't think code size should ever be a reason for an #ifdef in a .c > file: if the code is well-structured, you can always get the same object code > using if(IS_ENABLED()) checks within the code at better readability or better > compile-time coverage. > > Between if(IS_ENABLED()) checks and inline helpers, it usually doesn't matter > much either way as long as the separation between the modules is clear enough. > In the example above, removing the structure fields however would require to > move the debugging output into another inline function though.
Still, the question remains - If we were to allocate X bytes of memory per-something [in this case, per qed owned PCI function], and that memory wouldn't be functional without a some CONFIG option enabled, how big should X become before we'd decide the fields should also be dependent on the option? It bears no real relevance to this case, as the fields involved are insignificantly small. But still - is there a rule of thumb here? > > BTW, are you interested in doing a v2 for this? Or would you prefer if > > we'd pick it up from here? > > I think it's better if you do a v2, as you better understand the long-term > plans. I'd > be happy to test your patch in my randconfig build setup if you like. Sure.
