From: Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:31:42 +0100
> Hi Alexander,
Hi!
> Thank you for sending the patch over!
>
> > A single dw_pcie entity can't be a root complex and an endpoint at
> > the same time.
>
> Nice catch!
>
> A small nitpick: this would be Root Complex and Endpoint, as it's
> customary to capitalise these.
>
> Also, if you could capitalise the subject line - it could also perhaps
> be simplified to something like, for example:
>
> Optimize struct dw_pcie to reduce its size
>
> Feel free to ignore both suggestions, as these are just nitpicks.
They are both correct, so I can send a v2 if this one wont't be
picked to the tree, let's say, this week.
> > We can use this to reduce the size of dw_pcie by 80, from 280 to 200
> > bytes (on x32, guess more on x64), by putting the related embedded
> > structures (struct pcie_port and struct dw_pcie_ep) into a union.
>
> [...]
> > - struct pcie_port pp;
> > - struct dw_pcie_ep ep;
> > + union {
> > + struct pcie_port pp;
> > + struct dw_pcie_ep ep;
> > + };
> [...]
>
> How did you measure the difference? Often, people include pahole output
> for the "before" and "after", so to speak, to showcase the difference
> and/or improvement. Do you have something like that handy?
I didn't use pahole to measure the difference, just printed sizeofs
for the structures "before" and "after". But I can get pahole's
output and include it in v2 to make commit message more useful.
> Krzysztof
Thanks!
Al
