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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 15:39:50 +0000
From: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, "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

> 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?