netdev - Re: [net-next V2 03/12] net/mlx5e: Move mlx5e_tx_wqe_inline_mode to en

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]

Date:   Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:28:05 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Cc:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tariqt@...lanox.com" <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        "maximmi@...lanox.com" <maximmi@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next V2 03/12] net/mlx5e: Move mlx5e_tx_wqe_inline_mode to
 en_tx.c

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 19:22:02 +0000 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 20:29 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 20:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
> >   
> > > From: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 18:27:48 -0700
> > >   
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tx.c
> > > > @@ -232,6 +232,29 @@ mlx5e_txwqe_build_dsegs(struct mlx5e_txqsq
> > > > *sq, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > > >  	return -ENOMEM;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static inline bool mlx5e_transport_inline_tx_wqe(struct
> > > > mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg *cseg)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return cseg && !!cseg->tis_tir_num;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline u8
> > > > +mlx5e_tx_wqe_inline_mode(struct mlx5e_txqsq *sq, struct
> > > > mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg *cseg,
> > > > +			 struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > +{  
> > > 
> > > No inlines in foo.c files, please.  
> > 
> > I see you're doing this even more later in this series.
> > 
> > Please fix all of this up, thank you.  
> 
> Maxim really tried here to avoid this without huge performance
> degradation (~6.4% reduce in packet rate), due to the refactoring
> patches gcc yields non optimal code, as we explained in the commit
> messages and cover-letter
> 
> Our other option is making the code very ugly with no code reuse in the
> tx path, so we would really appreciate if you could relax the no-inline 
> guideline for this series.

Why are you requesting a whole pass on the series when only _some_
inlines make a difference here?