From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 15:22:55 +0100 > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:35:29 -0800 > >> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:31:52 +0100 Alexander Lobakin wrote: >>> This was rejected by Kuba in v2. >>> He didn't like to have napi_id two times within napi_struct (one inside >>> gro_node, one outside). >> >> Do you mean: >> >> the napi_id in gro sticks out.. >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250113130104.5c2c02e0@xxxxxxxxxx/ ? >> >> That's more of a nudge to try harder than a "no". We explored >> the alternatives, there's no perfect way to layer this. I think >> Eric's suggestion is probably as clean as we can get. > > You mean to cache napi_id in gro_node? > > Then we get +8 bytes to sizeof(napi_struct) for little reason... Dunno, > if you really prefer, I can do it that way. Alternative to avoid +8 bytes: struct napi_struct { ... union { struct gro_node gro; struct { u8 pad[offsetof(struct gro_node, napi_id)]; u32 napi_id; }; }; This is effectively the same what struct_group() does, just more ugly. But allows to declare gro_node separately. > > OTOH you gave Acked-by on struct_group(), then Eric appeared and you > took your ack back :D Thanks, Olek
