netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: add xsk_ring_prod_

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzb7A5abJaxxrS5sudCE=Ca0C9rY0B23OjK8c2RCCx=Y6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:42:21 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] libbpf: add xsk_ring_prod__free() function

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:37 AM Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 21:13, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:26 AM Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> When an AF_XDP application received X packets, it does not mean X
> >> frames can be stuffed into the producer ring. To make it easier for
> >> AF_XDP applications this API allows them to check how many frames can
> >> be added into the ring.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h | 6 ++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >> index 82ea71a0f3ec..86f3d485e957 100644
> >> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >> @@ -95,6 +95,12 @@ static inline __u32 xsk_prod_nb_free(struct
> >> xsk_ring_prod *r, __u32 nb)
> >>         return r->cached_cons - r->cached_prod;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +static inline __u32 xsk_ring_prod__free(struct xsk_ring_prod *r)
> >
> > This is a very bad name choice. __free is used for functions that free
> > memory and resources. One function below I see avail is used in the
> > name, why not xsk_ring_prog__avail?
>
> Must agree that free sound like you are freeing entries… However, I
> just kept the naming already in the API/file (see above,
> xsk_prod_nb_free()).
> Reading the code there is a difference as xx_avail() means available
> filled entries, where xx_free() means available free entries.
>
> So I could rename it to xsk_ring_prod__nb_free() maybe?

I'm fine with __nb_free, yes. Thanks!


>
> Forgot to include Magnus in the email, so copied him in, for some
> comments.
>
> >> +{
> >> +       r->cached_cons = *r->consumer + r->size;
> >> +       return r->cached_cons - r->cached_prod;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static inline __u32 xsk_cons_nb_avail(struct xsk_ring_cons *r, __u32
> >> nb)
> >>  {
> >>         __u32 entries = r->cached_prod - r->cached_cons;
> >> --
> >> 2.20.1
> >>