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.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
