[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRwUGnyFBxrkjGl7@lima-default>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 17:37:14 +1100
From: Alessandro Decina <alessandro.d@...il.com>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Tirthendu Sarkar <tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 1/1] i40e: xsk: advance next_to_clean on status
descriptors
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 05:37:49PM +0100, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> This revision is much more clear to me. Only thing that might be bothering
> someone is doubled i40e_rx_bi() call in i40e_get_rx_buffer(). Not sure if
> we can do about it though as we need to use ntp from before potential
> increment.
>
> ...maybe pass rx_buffer to i40e_get_rx_buffer() ?
Surely the compiler isn't going to actually reload here, but yeah not
great code wise. How about I pass it the buffer and rename to
i40e_prepare_rx_buffer to better match what's happening now?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists