> >On 07/12/17 14:28, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >> Thanks for review, comments inline. > >> > >> On 07.12.2017 15:49, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > >>> On 01/12/17 16:44, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >>>> This is preparation for 'struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread' modification > >>>> in upcoming commits. Needed to avoid reordering and regrouping > >>>> while replacing old and adding new members. > >>>> > >>> Should this be part of the TX batching set? Anyway, I'm ok if it's > >>> not stalling the approval :) > >> Unfortunately yes, because members reordered and regrouped just to > >> include new members: pmd->ctx and pmd->n_output_batches. This could > >> not be a standalone change because adding of different members will > >> require different regrouping/ reordering. I moved this change to a > >> separate patch to not do this twice while adding each member in > >> patches > >2/7 and 6/7. > >> > >> Anyway, as I mentioned in cover letter, I still prefer reverting of > >> the padding at all by this patch: > >> > >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2017-November/341153.h > >> tml > > I understand that with PADDED_MEMBERS macro it was slightly tricky to > extend or reorganize the structure and so suggested 'pahole'. > But I see that the problem hasn't gone and still there are some strong > opinions on reverting the earlier effort. > > I don’t mind reverting the patch but would be nice if the changes to this > structure are made keeping alignment in mind.
OK, it sounds like reverting the dpif-netdev padding is the preferred approach to simplify future development. I'll look at reviewing and validating. I agree as Jan has pointed out, it will make life easier for future large features when rebasing over the next few weeks. Ian > > - Bhanuprakash. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
