[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200716152625.01651110@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:26:25 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 12/15] net/mlx5e: XDP, Avoid indirect call in TX flow
On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:33:18 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
>
> Use INDIRECT_CALL_2() helper to avoid the cost of the indirect call
> when/if CONFIG_RETPOLINE=y.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
> Reviewed-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Are these expected?
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/xdp.c:251:29: warning: symbol 'mlx5e_xmit_xdp_frame_check_mpwqe' was not declared. Should it be static?
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/xdp.c:306:29: warning: symbol 'mlx5e_xmit_xdp_frame_check' was not declared. Should it be static?
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/xdp.c:251:29: warning: no previous prototype for ‘mlx5e_xmit_xdp_frame_check_mpwqe’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
251 | INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE int mlx5e_xmit_xdp_frame_check_mpwqe(struct mlx5e_xdpsq *sq)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/xdp.c:306:29: warning: no previous prototype for ‘mlx5e_xmit_xdp_frame_check’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
306 | INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE int mlx5e_xmit_xdp_frame_check(struct mlx5e_xdpsq *sq)
|
Powered by blists - more mailing lists