On 11.08.25 13:35, Alexandra Winter wrote:
>
>
> On 10.08.25 16:00, Dust Li wrote:
>> On 2025-08-06 17:41:09, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> [...]
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.h b/net/smc/smc_core.h
>>> index 48a1b1dcb576..fe5f48d14323 100644
>>> --- a/net/smc/smc_core.h
>>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_core.h
>>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>>> #define _SMC_CORE_H
>>>
>>> #include <linux/atomic.h>
>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>> #include <linux/smc.h>
>>> #include <linux/pci.h>
>>> #include <rdma/ib_verbs.h>
>>> @@ -221,12 +222,16 @@ struct smc_buf_desc {
>>> /* virtually contiguous */
>>> };
>>> struct { /* SMC-D */
>>> + /* SMC-D rx buffer: */
>>> unsigned short sba_idx;
>>> /* SBA index number */
>>> u64 token;
>>> /* DMB token number */
>>> dma_addr_t dma_addr;
>>> /* DMA address */
>>> + /* SMC-D tx buffer */
>>> + bool is_attached;
>>> + /* no need for explicit writes */
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Dust Li <dust.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> A small sugguestion: there is a hole between sba_idx and token, we can
>> put is_attached in that hole.
>> Not a big deal because this is a union and SMC-R use a much large space.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dust
>>
>
> Thank you very much for your throrough reviews of this series, Dust.
>
> I put 'bool is_attached' in this place, so I could add the comments about which members
> are used for rx-buffers and which for tx-buffers.
> I find the struct smc_buf_desc a bit confusing and thought these comments would be helpful.
> Is it ok for you to leave it that way?
I hit send too fast. Obviously I can put it above sba_idx. That will reduce the hole by 1 byte.
Changed for next version.
