netdev - netif_napi_add vs. multiple netdev's

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1192513633.19073.21.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:47:13 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: netif_napi_add vs. multiple netdev's

Hi Stehphen !

The new netif_napi_add() function takes a netdev argument. In the EMAC
case, there is one NAPI instance working on behalf of multiple netdev's,
so that isn't very useful. For my EMAC patch (just posted to you & the
list), I'm not passing NULL, but I'm wondering what would be a good way
to handle netpoll here...

The way it's currently implemented, there's a list of NAPI's attached to
the netdev, so obviously, that won't work for my usage scenario.

I'm not sure what's the best data structure that would be suitable for
both N ndev's for 1 NAPI and 1 ndev for N NAPI's though... I could
allocate "stub" list heads and queue those up, but that's a bit gross...

Any better idea ?

Cheers,
Ben.

-
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