[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1717056010.897231-1-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 16:00:10 +0800
From: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Eugenio PĂ©rez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 0/7] virtnet_net: prepare for af-xdp
On Thu, 30 May 2024 03:55:35 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 03:26:42PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > This patch set prepares for supporting af-xdp zerocopy.
> > There is no feature change in this patch set.
> > I just want to reduce the patch num of the final patch set,
> > so I split the patch set.
> >
> > #1-#3 add independent directory for virtio-net
> > #4-#7 do some refactor, the sub-functions will be used by the subsequent commits
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > v1:
> > 1. resend for the new net-next merge window
>
> What I said at the time is
>
> I am fine adding xsk in a new file or just adding in same file working on a split later.
>
> Given this was a year ago and all we keep seing is "prepare" patches,
> I am inclined to say do it in the reverse order: add
> af-xdp first then do the split when it's clear there is not
> a lot of code sharing going on.
If all is done in one patch set, maybe is ok. But we have about 14 commits for
af-xdp. If that patch set includes these commits, then we will exceed 15
(net-next limits the commit number of one patch set).
I separated these patches from the final patch set because I think these commits
can exist independently even without af-xdp.
Whether the final xsk should use a separate file, we can look at it in future
patches. If you think we can merge it into one file, I am also OK with it.
Although other drivers currently use separate files.
So if you think this patch set itself is fine, then I hope we can merge this
first.
Thanks.
>
>
> >
> > Xuan Zhuo (7):
> > virtio_net: independent directory
> > virtio_net: move core structures to virtio_net.h
> > virtio_net: add prefix virtnet to all struct inside virtio_net.h
> > virtio_net: separate virtnet_rx_resize()
> > virtio_net: separate virtnet_tx_resize()
> > virtio_net: separate receive_mergeable
> > virtio_net: separate receive_buf
> >
> > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > drivers/net/Kconfig | 9 +-
> > drivers/net/Makefile | 2 +-
> > drivers/net/virtio/Kconfig | 12 +
> > drivers/net/virtio/Makefile | 8 +
> > drivers/net/virtio/virtnet.h | 248 ++++++++
> > .../{virtio_net.c => virtio/virtnet_main.c} | 536 ++++++------------
> > 7 files changed, 454 insertions(+), 363 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/net/virtio/Kconfig
> > create mode 100644 drivers/net/virtio/Makefile
> > create mode 100644 drivers/net/virtio/virtnet.h
> > rename drivers/net/{virtio_net.c => virtio/virtnet_main.c} (94%)
> >
> > --
> > 2.32.0.3.g01195cf9f
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists