On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:26:15PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:22 PM Jonathan Lemon > <jonathan.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 09:43:15AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:09 PM Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.le...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Lemon <b...@fb.com> > > > > > > > > In preparation for expanded zerocopy (TX and RX), move > > > > the ZC related bits out of tx_flags into their own flag > > > > word. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.le...@gmail.com> > > > > > > I think it's better to expand tx_flags to a u16 and add the two new > > > flags that you need. > > > > Okay, but in that case, tx_flags is now wrong, since some of these flags > > will also be checked on the rx path. > > > > > > > That allows the additional 7 bits to be used for arbitrary flags, not > > > stranding 8 bits exactly only for zerocopy features. > > > > > > Moving around a few u8's in the same cacheline won't be a problem. > > > > How about rearranging them to form 16 bits, and just calling it 'flags'? > > I thought that would be a good idea, but tx_flags is used in a lot > more places than I expected. That will be a lot of renaming. Let's > just either keep the name or add a new field.
Hmm, which? I went with "add new field" = zc_flags. I can rename this to something else if that's too specific. Suggestions? -- Jonathan "naming is hard!"
