[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210228114328.4909c805@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 11:43:28 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] virtio-net: support XDP_TX when not more
queues
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 16:22:47 +0800 Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> +static void virtnet_put_xdp_sq(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct send_queue *sq)
> +{
> + struct netdev_queue *txq;
> + unsigned int qp;
> +
> + if (vi->curr_queue_pairs <= nr_cpu_ids) {
> + qp = sq - vi->sq;
> + txq = netdev_get_tx_queue(vi->dev, qp);
> + __netif_tx_unlock(txq);
> + }
> +}
Could we potentially avoid sparse warnings on this patch by adding the
right annotations?
I've seen this pattern used in a few places:
void maybe_take_some_lock()
__acquires(lock)
{
if (condition) {
lock(lock); /* really take the lock */
} else {
/* tell sparse we took the lock, but don't really take it */
__acquire(lock);
}
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists