[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250113160105.GA404075@bhelgaas>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:01:05 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com, andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com,
somnath.kotur@...adcom.com,
Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@...adcom.com>,
David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/10] bnxt_en: Extend queue stop/start for Tx
rings
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 10:39:26PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> From: Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@...adcom.com>
>
> In order to use queue_stop/queue_start to support the new Steering
> Tags, we need to free the TX ring and TX completion ring if it is a
> combined channel with TX/RX sharing the same NAPI. Otherwise
> TX completions will not have the updated Steering Tag. With that
> we can now add napi_disable() and napi_enable() during queue_stop()/
> queue_start(). This will guarantee that NAPI will stop processing
> the completion entries in case there are additional pending entries
> in the completion rings after queue_stop().
>
> There could be some NQEs sitting unprocessed while NAPI is disabled
> thereby leaving the NQ unarmed. Explictily Re-arm the NQ after
> napi_enable() in queue start so that NAPI will resume properly.
s/Explictily Re-arm/Explicitly re-arm/ (typo + capitalization)
There's a mix of "TX/RX" vs "Tx/Rx" styles in the subjects and commit
logs of this series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists