[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4aa03b21-5503-1d62-66b1-aa1b3c42011d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 19:46:39 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-net-drivers@....com
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/34] sfc: switch to using atomic find_bit() API where
appropriate
On 18/11/2023 15:50, Yury Norov wrote:
> SFC code traverses rps_slot_map and rxq_retry_mask bit by bit. We can do
> it better by using dedicated atomic find_bit() functions, because they
> skip already clear bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists