Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 21:14:31 -0700
From:   Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>
To:     Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        'Moritz Fischer' <mdf@kernel.org>,
        "linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "trix@redhat.com" <trix@redhat.com>,
        "lgoncalv@redhat.com" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] fpga: dfl: change data type of feature id to u16
Message-ID: <20200820041431.GB4022@epycbox.lan>
References: <1597027273-25288-1-git-send-email-yilun.xu@intel.com>
 <1597027273-25288-2-git-send-email-yilun.xu@intel.com>
 <20200812035604.GA2544@epycbox.lan>
 <3810fb75b42e45928a39a97449a01520@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20200813075843.GB7383@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
 <54216e492cec4f84bc43dee176130e89@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20200813090409.GA1080@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200813090409.GA1080@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 05:04:09PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 08:28:05AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Xu Yilun
> > > Sent: 13 August 2020 08:59
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 08:52:39AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: Moritz Fischer
> > > > > Sent: 12 August 2020 04:56
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:41:10AM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > > > > The feature id is stored in a 12 bit field in DFH. So a u16 variable is
> > > > > > enough for feature id.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch changes all feature id related places to fit u16.
> > > >
> > > > How much bigger does it make the kernel?
> > > 
> > > The patch changes the definition of feature id from u64 to u16, and will
> > > make the kernel slightly smaller.
> > 
> > Unlikely.
> > Most of the structures will gain a 'pad' field.
> > Using u16 for function parameters and results almost certainly
> > requires instructions to mask the value.
> > Any arithmetic on u16 will require masking instructions on
> > (probably) all architectures except x86.
> > 
> > Using 'unsigned int' is probably best.
> > 
> > u16 is never a good idea unless you are defining enough
> > of them in a structure (eg as an array) to reduce the
> > structure size below some threshold.
> > (Or are matching some hardware layout.)
> 
> I got it. Thanks for your detailed explanation. I think we may change them to
> u32. Is it the same case for u8? Think we may also change the dfl_device_id.type.
> 
> 
> Hi Moritz:
> 
> The patch is applied to for-next, is it possible we recall it, or we
> make another fix after it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yilun.

Sorry for the delay, can you send a follow-up please?

Cheers,
Moritz