[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aRwoqgw1KFX+H6ci@boxer>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:04:58 +0100
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
To: Alessandro Decina <alessandro.d@...il.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 Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 05:37:14PM +1100, Alessandro Decina wrote:
> 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?
SGTM!
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists