[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4669c0e0-9ba3-4215-a937-efaad3f71754@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:24:16 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/8] net: gro: decouple GRO from the NAPI
layer
On 1/7/25 4:29 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> @@ -623,21 +622,21 @@ static gro_result_t napi_skb_finish(struct napi_struct *napi,
> return ret;
> }
>
> -gro_result_t napi_gro_receive(struct napi_struct *napi, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +gro_result_t gro_receive_skb(struct gro_node *gro, struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> gro_result_t ret;
>
> - skb_mark_napi_id(skb, napi);
> + __skb_mark_napi_id(skb, gro->napi_id);
Is this the only place where gro->napi_id is needed? If so, what about
moving skb_mark_napi_id() in napi_gro_receive() and remove such field?
/P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists