[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BF410EC2-6DFE-46B2-8AF1-4C48309C5F7B@nutanix.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:09:08 +0000
From: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
CC: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.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>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Jesper
Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] xdp: add xdp_skb_reserve_put helper
> On Apr 30, 2025, at 3:04 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
> CAUTION: External Email
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
>
> Jon Kohler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2025, at 2:40 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>> CAUTION: External Email
>>>
>>> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
>>>
>>> On 4/30/25 8:25 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>> Jon Kohler wrote:
>>>>> Add helper for calling skb_{put|reserve} to reduce repetitive pattern
>>>>> across various drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plumb into tap and tun to start.
>>>>>
>>>>> No functional change intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/tap.c | 3 +--
>>>>> drivers/net/tun.c | 3 +--
>>>>> include/net/xdp.h | 8 ++++++++
>>>>> net/core/xdp.c | 3 +--
>>>>> 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>> Subjective, but I prefer the existing code. I understand what
>>>> skb_reserve and skb_put do. While xdp_skb_reserve_put adds a layer of
>>>> indirection that I'd have to follow.
>>>> Sometimes deduplication makes sense, sometimes the indirection adds
>>>> more mental load than it's worth. In this case the code savings are
>>>> small. As said, subjective. Happy to hear other opinions.
>>>
>>> +1, agree with Willem
>>
>> That’s a fair point. I was also toying with the idea of something like
>> this instead:
>>
>> e.g.
>> xdp_headroom(xdp) == xdp->data - xdp->data_hard_start
>> … similar to skb_headroom
>>
>> xdp_length_base(xdp) == xdp->data_end - xdp->data
>> … similar to xdp_get_buff_len, but doesn’t look at frags
>>
>> then we could do:
>> skb_reserve(skb, xdp_headroom(xdp));
>> skb_put(skb, xdp_length_base(xdp));
>>
>> Names TBD of course, but thoughts?
>>
>> That way we keep skb_reserve/put just the same, but have
>> a nice helper like we do for skb_headroom() already
>
> I like the idea of xdp_headroom and xdk_headlen, similar to
> skb_headroom and skb_headlen.
>
Sold! I’ll cook it up
Powered by blists - more mailing lists