[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250210192058.26b59185@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:20:58 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, ahmed.zaki@...el.com, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet
<corbet@....net>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] documentation: networking: Add NAPI config
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:50:47 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 06:16:35PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:28:21 +0000 Joe Damato wrote:
> > > +Persistent NAPI config
> > > +----------------------
> > > +
> > > +Drivers can opt-in to using a persistent NAPI configuration space by calling
> >
> > Should we be more forceful? I think for new drivers the _add_config()
> > API should always be preferred given the benefits.
>
> How about: "Drivers should opt-in ..." instead? I have no strong
> preference.
A bit more editing may be beneficial, lead with the problem:
Drivers often allocate and free NAPI instances dynamically. This leads
to loss of NAPI-related user configuration, each time NAPI instances
are reallocated. The netif_napi_add_config() API prevents this loss of
configuration by associating each NAPI instance with...
Drivers should try to use netif_napi_add_config() whenever possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists