Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 09:08:05 -0400 From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Marius Strobl <marius@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r349055 - head/sys/net Message-ID: <154077cb-14b1-1dbc-cb65-3233045963c0@cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <201906151107.x5FB7f6N039968@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201906151107.x5FB7f6N039968@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2019-06-15 07:07, Marius Strobl wrote: > Author: marius > Date: Sat Jun 15 11:07:41 2019 > New Revision: 349055 > Log: > - Replace unused and only ever written to members of public iflib(9) > structs with placeholders (in the latter case, IFLIB_MAX_TX_BYTES > etc. are also only ever used for these write-only members if at all, > so both these macros and members can just go). Using these spares > may render it possible to merge certain iflib(9) fixes to stable/12. > Otherwise, changes extending struct if_irq or struct if_shared_ctx > in any way would break KBI as instances of these are allocated by > the driver front-ends (by contrast, struct if_pkt_info as well as > struct if_softc_ctx instances are provided by iflib(9) and, thus, > may grow at least at the end without breaking KBI). Given the above, why replace ipi_tcp_sum in if_pkt_info with a spare? Given that if_pkt_info can grow, I would also expect it to be able to shrink. So I don't quite see why the spare is needed here. I also worry about carrying the other spares around forever. Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?154077cb-14b1-1dbc-cb65-3233045963c0>