On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 10:30 AM -08, Cong Wang wrote:
> > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > psock->eval can only have 4 possible values, make it 8-bit is
> > sufficient.
> >
> > psock->redir_ingress is just a boolean, using 1 bit is enough.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/skmsg.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> > index bf28ce9b5fdb..beaf79b2b68b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/skmsg.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h
> > @@ -85,8 +85,8 @@ struct sk_psock {
> > struct sock *sk_redir;
> > u32 apply_bytes;
> > u32 cork_bytes;
> > - u32 eval;
> > - bool redir_ingress; /* undefined if sk_redir is null */
> > + unsigned int eval : 8;
> > + unsigned int redir_ingress : 1; /* undefined if sk_redir is null */
> > struct sk_msg *cork;
> > struct sk_psock_progs progs;
> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BPF_STREAM_PARSER)
>
> Are you doing this bit packing to create a hole big enough to fit
> another u32 introduced in the next patch?
Kinda, or at least trying to save some space for the next patch. I am
not yet trying to reorder them to make it more packed, because it can
be a separate patch.
Thanks!
