netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: lan966x: Add basic XDP support

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]

Message-Id: <20221107161357.556549-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
Date:   Mon,  7 Nov 2022 17:13:57 +0100
From:   Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alexander.lobakin@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: lan966x: Add basic XDP support

From: Alexander Lobakin <alexander.lobakin@...el.com>

From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 22:11:53 +0100

> Introduce basic XDP support to lan966x driver. Currently the driver
> supports only the actions XDP_PASS, XDP_DROP and XDP_ABORTED.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
> ---
>  .../net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/Makefile   |  3 +-
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_fdma.c | 11 ++-
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c |  5 ++
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h | 13 +++
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c  | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c

[...]

> +bool lan966x_xdp_port_present(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> +	return !!port->xdp_prog;
> +}

Why uninline such a simple check? I realize you want to keep all XDP
stuff inside in the separate file, but doesn't this one looks too
much?

> +
> +int lan966x_xdp_port_init(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> +	struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x;
> +
> +	return xdp_rxq_info_reg(&port->xdp_rxq, port->dev, 0,
> +				lan966x->napi.napi_id);
> +}
> +
> +void lan966x_xdp_port_deinit(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> +	if (xdp_rxq_info_is_reg(&port->xdp_rxq))
> +		xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&port->xdp_rxq);
> +}
> -- 
> 2.38.0

Thanks,
Olek