On 7/15/25 8:36 AM, Akihiko Odaki wrote: > On 2025/07/11 22:02, Paolo Abeni wrote: >> The set_offload() argument list is already pretty long and >> we are going to introduce soon a bunch of additional offloads. >> >> Replace the offload arguments with a single struct and update >> all the relevant call-sites. >> >> No functional changes intended. >> >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com> >> --- >> Note: I maintained the struct usage as opposed to uint64_t bitmask usage >> as suggested by Akihiko, because the latter feel a bit more invasive. > > I think a bitmask will be invasive to the same extent with the current > version; most part of this change comes from the parameter passing, > which does not depend on the representation of the parameter.
Do you have strong feeling WRT the bitmask usage? Another argument vs the bitmask usage is that it will requires some extra input validation of the selected offload bits (most of them don't make sense in this context). Thanks, Paolo
