[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b2ae6b80-83e3-4b22-8301-c91569c89494@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:48:38 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>, Alexandre Torgue
<alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>, Andrew
Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, "Maxime Coquelin" <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
<xfr@...look.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] net: stmmac: Drop useless code related to
ethtool rx-copybreak
From: Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:34:07 +0800
> After commit 2af6106ae949 ("net: stmmac: Introducing support for Page
> Pool"), the driver always copies frames to get a better performance,
> zero-copy for RX frames is no more, then these code turned to be
> useless and users of ethtool may get confused about the unhandled
> rx-copybreak parameter.
>
> This patch mostly reverts
> commit 22ad38381547 ("stmmac: do not perform zero-copy for rx frames")
>
> Signed-off-by: Furong Xu <0x1207@...il.com>
The patch itself is fine, *but*
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h | 2 -
> .../ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_ethtool.c | 39 -------------------
> .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 5 ---
> 3 files changed, 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h
> index 1d86439b8a14..b8d631e559c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac.h
> @@ -126,7 +126,6 @@ struct stmmac_rx_queue {
> unsigned int cur_rx;
> unsigned int dirty_rx;
> unsigned int buf_alloc_num;
> - u32 rx_zeroc_thresh;
> dma_addr_t dma_rx_phy;
If sizeof(dma_addr_t) == 8, you're clearly introducing a 4-byte hole
here. Perhaps you could reshuffle the struct a bit to avoid this.
It's always good to inspect the .kos with pahole after modifying
structures to make sure there are no regressions.
> u32 rx_tail_addr;
> unsigned int state_saved;
Thanks,
Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists