[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa035bcc-88ef-5bc2-96ae-46b05987b0dd@solarflare.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:44:30 +0100
From: Charles McLachlan <cmclachlan@...arflare.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] sfc: support encapsulation of xdp_frames in
efx_tx_buffer.
On 22/10/2019 23:19, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c
>> index 65e81ec1b314..9905e8952a45 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tx.c
>> @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ static void efx_dequeue_buffer(struct efx_tx_queue *tx_queue,
>> netif_vdbg(tx_queue->efx, tx_done, tx_queue->efx->net_dev,
>> "TX queue %d transmission id %x complete\n",
>> tx_queue->queue, tx_queue->read_count);
>> + } else if (buffer->flags & EFX_TX_BUF_XDP) {
>> + xdp_return_frame(buffer->xdpf);
>
> Is this efx_dequeue_buffer() function always called under NAPI protection?
> (So it could use the faster xdp_return_frame_rx_napi() ... ?)
Yes, it *is* always called from NAPI, so I've changed it to use xdp_return_frame_rx_napi.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists