[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240618141924.5a62a3d8@hermes.local>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:19:24 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Omer Shpigelman <oshpigelman@...ana.ai>
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "ogabbay@...nel.org"
<ogabbay@...nel.org>, Zvika Yehudai <zyehudai@...ana.ai>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/15] net: hbl_en: add habanalabs Ethernet driver
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:37:36 +0000
Omer Shpigelman <oshpigelman@...ana.ai> wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason in particular to call netif_receive_skb instead of
> > napi_gro_receive ?
> >
>
> As you can see, we also support polling mode which is a non-NAPI flow.
> We could use napi_gro_receive() for NAPI flow and netif_receive_skb() for
> polling mode but we don't support RX checksum offload anyway.
Why non-NAPI? I thought current netdev policy was all drivers should
use NAPI.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists