Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: Support for managing RX indirection table

From: "Vlad Zolotarov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:53:38 +0200

On Wednesday 16 February 2011 00:50:18 Tom Herbert wrote:
> >> +     u32                     rx_indir_table[128];
> >
> > Shouldn't the dimension be TSTORM_INDIRECTION_TABLE_SIZE?
> >
> 
> It's not a defined constant, so the alternative would be to malloc it
> which seems like overkill to me.
> 
> Broadcom guys: are there any adapters or configuration of bnx2x where
> the indirection table would be greater than 128?

Although for all currently supported adapters the actual value of the indirection 
table size is 128 I agree with Ben and would like to ask u to use the above macro (which
is a rename for an entry in a per-adapter array of constants) to keep the code 
scalable and clean. I don't think that a malloc would be too much of a price for it... ;)

thanks,
vlad

> 
> Tom
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to [email-masked]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
>