[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220207084717.5b7126e7@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 08:47:17 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
<toke@...e.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dev: Makes sure netif_rx() can be
invoked in any context.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 21:36:05 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-02-04 20:17:15 [-0800], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:12:58 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > +int __netif_rx(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + trace_netif_rx_entry(skb);
> > > + ret = netif_rx_internal(skb);
> > > + trace_netif_rx_exit(ret);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> >
> > Any reason this is not exported? I don't think there's anything wrong
> > with drivers calling this function, especially SW drivers which already
> > know to be in BH. I'd vote for roughly all of $(ls drivers/net/*.c) to
> > get the same treatment as loopback.
>
> Don't we end up in the same situation as netif_rx() vs netix_rx_ni()?
Sort of. TBH my understanding of the motivation is a bit vague.
IIUC you want to reduce the API duplication so drivers know what to
do[1]. I believe the quote from Eric you put in the commit message
pertains to HW devices, where using netif_rx() is quite anachronistic.
But software devices like loopback, veth or tunnels may want to go via
backlog for good reasons. Would it make it better if we called
netif_rx() netif_rx_backlog() instead? Or am I missing the point?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists