| Message ID | cover.1605889258.git.lorenzo@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | mvneta: access skb_shared_info only on last frag | expand |
Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff > skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment. > Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm routine. > This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver. > > Lorenzo Bianconi (3): > net: mvneta: avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization > net: mvneta: move skb_shared_info in mvneta_xdp_put_buff > net: mvneta: alloc skb_shared_info on the mvneta_rx_swbm stack > > drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > For the series: Reviewed-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:05:41 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff > skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment. > Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm routine. > This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver. Looks fine, but since you need this for XDP multi-buff it should probably go via bpf-next, right? Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:05:41 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff > > skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment. > > Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm routine. > > This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver. > > Looks fine, but since you need this for XDP multi-buff it should > probably go via bpf-next, right? > > Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Hi Jakub, thx for the review. Since the series changes networking-only bits I sent it for net-next, but I agree bpf-next is better. @Alexei, Daniel: is it fine to merge the series in bpf-next? Regards, Lorenzo
On 11/24/20 11:18 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:05:41 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >>> Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff >>> skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment. >>> Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm routine. >>> This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver. >> >> Looks fine, but since you need this for XDP multi-buff it should >> probably go via bpf-next, right? >> >> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> > > Hi Jakub, > > thx for the review. Since the series changes networking-only bits I sent it for > net-next, but I agree bpf-next is better. > > @Alexei, Daniel: is it fine to merge the series in bpf-next? Yeah totally fine, will take it into bpf-next in a bit. Thanks, Daniel
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 23:25:11 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 11/24/20 11:18 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:05:41 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >>> Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff > >>> skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment. > >>> Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm routine. > >>> This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver. > >> > >> Looks fine, but since you need this for XDP multi-buff it should > >> probably go via bpf-next, right? > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> > > > > Hi Jakub, > > > > thx for the review. Since the series changes networking-only bits I sent it for > > net-next, but I agree bpf-next is better. > > > > @Alexei, Daniel: is it fine to merge the series in bpf-next? > > Yeah totally fine, will take it into bpf-next in a bit. FWIW watch out with the Link:s, it wasn't CCed to bpf@vger.
On 11/24/20 11:30 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 23:25:11 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 11/24/20 11:18 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:05:41 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >>>>> Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff >>>>> skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment. >>>>> Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm routine. >>>>> This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver. >>>> >>>> Looks fine, but since you need this for XDP multi-buff it should >>>> probably go via bpf-next, right? >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> >>> >>> Hi Jakub, >>> >>> thx for the review. Since the series changes networking-only bits I sent it for >>> net-next, but I agree bpf-next is better. >>> >>> @Alexei, Daniel: is it fine to merge the series in bpf-next? >> >> Yeah totally fine, will take it into bpf-next in a bit. > > FWIW watch out with the Link:s, it wasn't CCed to bpf@vger. @Jakub, I think it's less hassle if you take the series in. Looking closer, net-next has commit 9c79a8ab5f12 ("net: mvneta: fix possible memory leak in mvneta_swbm_add_rx_fragment") which bpf-next is currently lacking, and this series here is touching the part of this code, so it will create unnecessary merge conflicts. I'll likely flush out bpf-next PR on Thurs/Fri at latest, so bpf-next will then have everything needed once we sync back from net-next after merge. Thanks, Daniel
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 00:00:33 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 11/24/20 11:30 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 23:25:11 +0100 Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >> On 11/24/20 11:18 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:05:41 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >>>>> Build skb_shared_info on mvneta_rx_swbm stack and sync it to xdp_buff > >>>>> skb_shared_info area only on the last fragment. > >>>>> Avoid avoid unnecessary xdp_buff initialization in mvneta_rx_swbm routine. > >>>>> This a preliminary series to complete xdp multi-buff in mvneta driver. > >>>> > >>>> Looks fine, but since you need this for XDP multi-buff it should > >>>> probably go via bpf-next, right? > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> > >>> > >>> Hi Jakub, > >>> > >>> thx for the review. Since the series changes networking-only bits I sent it for > >>> net-next, but I agree bpf-next is better. > >>> > >>> @Alexei, Daniel: is it fine to merge the series in bpf-next? > >> > >> Yeah totally fine, will take it into bpf-next in a bit. > > > > FWIW watch out with the Link:s, it wasn't CCed to bpf@vger. > > @Jakub, I think it's less hassle if you take the series in. Looking closer, net-next has > commit 9c79a8ab5f12 ("net: mvneta: fix possible memory leak in mvneta_swbm_add_rx_fragment") > which bpf-next is currently lacking, and this series here is touching the part of this > code, so it will create unnecessary merge conflicts. I'll likely flush out bpf-next PR > on Thurs/Fri at latest, so bpf-next will then have everything needed once we sync back > from net-next after merge. I see, applied to net-next then. Thanks!