netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/9 Rev3] Implement batching skb API and support in IPoIB

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OF000FAFC5.C9245715-ON65257332.0016D216-65257332.0017CCB2@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:49:57 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	gaagaan@...il.com, general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hadi@...erus.ca,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, jagana@...ibm.com, jeff@...zik.org,
	johnpol@....mipt.ru, kaber@...sh.net, kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com,
	mcarlson@...adcom.com, mchan@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, rdreier@...co.com,
	rick.jones2@...com, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, sri@...ibm.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
	xma@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9 Rev3] Implement batching skb API and support in IPoIB

Hi Dave,

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote on 08/09/2007 03:31:37 AM:

> > What do you generally think of the patch/implementation ? :)
>
> We have two driver implementation paths on recieve and now
> we'll have two on send, and that's not a good trend.

Correct.

> In an ideal world all the drivers would be NAPI and netif_rx()
> would only be used by tunneling drivers and similar in the
> protocol layers.  And likewise all sends would go through
> ->hard_start_xmit().
>
> If you can come up with a long term strategy that gets rid of
> the special transmit method, that'd be great.
>
> We should make Linux network drivers easy to write, not more difficult
> by constantly adding most interfaces than we consolidate.

I think that is a good top level view, and I agree with that.

Patrick had suggested calling dev_hard_start_xmit() instead of
conditionally calling the new API and to remove the new API
entirely. The driver determines whether batching is required or
not depending on (skb==NULL) or not. Would that approach be fine
with this "single interface" goal ?

Thanks,

- KK

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html