Return-Path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:44665 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754544AbbLPPOD (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:14:03 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/11] xprtrdma: Move struct ib_send_wr off the stack From: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: <20151216151115.GA16905@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:13:31 -0500 Cc: Sagi Grimberg , anna.schumaker@netapp.com, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Linux NFS Mailing List Message-Id: References: <20151214211317.16295.70115.stgit@manet.1015granger.net> <20151214211811.16295.47695.stgit@manet.1015granger.net> <56716E6C.4020604@dev.mellanox.co.il> <20151216151115.GA16905@infradead.org> To: Christoph Hellwig Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:06:33AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> Would it make sense to unionize these as they are guaranteed not to >>> execute together? Some people don't like this sort of savings. >> >> I dislike unions because they make the code that uses >> them less readable. I can define macros to help that, >> but sigh! OK. > > Shouldn't be an issue with transparent unions these days: > > union { > struct ib_reg_wr fr_regwr; > struct ib_send_wr fr_invwr; > }; Right, but isn't that a gcc-ism that Al hates? If everyone is OK with that construction, I will use it. -- Chuck Lever