[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa186760-2a37-4b1b-98ec-68ec61fbbeb8@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:05:58 +0000
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>, Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>,
Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v13 04/11] io_uring/zcrx: implement zerocopy
receive pp memory provider
On 2/13/25 22:46, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 2:36 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
...
>>>> + if (pp->dma_map)
>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>
>>> This condition should be flipped actually. pp->dma_map should be true,
>>> otherwise the provider isn't supported.
>>
>> It's not implemented in this patch, which is why rejected.
>> You can think of it as an unconditional failure, even though
>> io_pp_zc_init is not reachable just yet.
>>
>
> Ah, I see in the follow up patch you flip the condition, that's fine then.
>
> I usually see defensive checks get rejected but I don't see that
Yeah, sounds like that's the rule in net/.
> blocking this series, so FWIW:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Thanks for the review!
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists