netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Make gro complete function to return void

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: Tue, 30 May 2023 09:51:32 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com"
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Make gro complete function to return void

On 5/30/23 9:39 AM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>> From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 11:26 AM
>>
>> On 5/29/23 7:44 AM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c index
>>> 45dda7889387..88f9b0081ee7 100644
>>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_offload.c
>>> @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ struct sk_buff *tcp_gro_receive(struct list_head
>> *head, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>  	return pp;
>>>  }
>>>
>>> -int tcp_gro_complete(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> +void tcp_gro_complete(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct tcphdr *th = tcp_hdr(skb);
>>>
>>> @@ -311,8 +311,6 @@ int tcp_gro_complete(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>
>>>  	if (skb->encapsulation)
>>>  		skb->inner_transport_header = skb->transport_header;
>>> -
>>> -	return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_gro_complete);
>>
>> tcp_gro_complete seems fairly trivial. Any reason not to make it an inline and
>> avoid another function call in the datapath?
>>
> Sounds good to me.
> With inline it should mostly improve the perf, but I do not have any of the 3 adapters which are calling this API to show perf results.
> 
> Since, it is a different change touching the performance, I prefer to do follow up patch that bnx owners can test.
> Is that ok?

sure.