netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 RFC 1/6] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit arch with 64-bit DMA

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, 11 Jul 2023 09:37:05 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@...il.com>, Yunsheng Lin
 <linyunsheng@...wei.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Lorenzo Bianconi
 <lorenzo@...nel.org>, Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, Liang
 Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, "Leon
 Romanovsky" <leon@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jesper
 Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias Apalodimas
 <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RFC 1/6] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit arch
 with 64-bit DMA

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:59:00 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> I'm fine with that, although ain't really able to work on this myself
> now :s (BTW I almost finished Netlink bigints, just some more libie/IAVF
> crap).

FWIW I was thinking about the bigints recently, and from ynl
perspective I think we may want two flavors :( One which is at
most the length of platform's long long, and another which is
always a bigint. The latter will be more work for user space
to handle, so given 99% of use cases don't need more than 64b
we should make its life easier?

> It just needs to be carefully designed, because if we want move ALL the
> inlines to a new header, we may end up including 2 PP's headers in each
> file. That's why I'd prefer "core/driver" separation. Let's say skbuff.c
> doesn't need page_pool_create(), page_pool_alloc(), and so on, while
> drivers don't need some of its internal functions.
> OTOH after my patch it's included in only around 20-30 files on
> allmodconfig. That is literally nothing comparing to e.g. kernel.h
> (w/includes) :D

Well, once you have to rebuilding 100+ files it gets pretty hard to
clean things up ;) 

I think I described the preferred setup, previously:

$path/page_pool.h:

#include <$path/page_pool/types.h>
#include <$path/page_pool/helpers.h>

$path/page_pool/types.h - has types
$path/page_pool/helpers.h - has all the inlines

C sources can include $path/page_pool.h, headers should generally only
include $path/page_pool/types.h.