On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 10:56 +0000, David Vrabel wrote: > On 13/03/14 10:33, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 21:48 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote: > >> @@ -135,13 +146,31 @@ struct xenvif { > >> pending_ring_idx_t pending_cons; > >> u16 pending_ring[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; > >> struct pending_tx_info pending_tx_info[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; > >> + grant_handle_t grant_tx_handle[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; > >> > >> /* Coalescing tx requests before copying makes number of grant > >> * copy ops greater or equal to number of slots required. In > >> * worst case a tx request consumes 2 gnttab_copy. > >> */ > >> struct gnttab_copy tx_copy_ops[2*MAX_PENDING_REQS]; > >> - > >> + struct gnttab_map_grant_ref tx_map_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; > >> + struct gnttab_unmap_grant_ref tx_unmap_ops[MAX_PENDING_REQS]; > > > > I wonder if we should break some of these arrays into separate > > allocations? Wasn't there a problem with sizeof(struct xenvif) at one > > point? > > alloc_netdev() falls back to vmalloc() if the kmalloc failed so there's > no need to split these structures.
Is vmalloc space in abundant supply? For some reason I thought it was limited (maybe that's a 32-bit only limitation?) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/