netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 9/9] eth: bnxt: count xdp xmit packets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250304165138.4c0c0edb@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 16:51:38 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
 pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 9/9] eth: bnxt: count xdp xmit packets

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 14:48:05 -0800 Michael Chan wrote:
> > @@ -1134,6 +1137,8 @@ struct bnxt_tx_sw_stats {
> >         /* non-ethtool stats follow */
> >         u64                     tx_packets;
> >         u64                     tx_bytes;
> > +       u64                     xdp_packets; /* under rx syncp */
> > +       u64                     xdp_bytes;  /* under rx syncp */  
> 
> Why do we need different TX counters for XDP?  A TX ring is either for
> XDP or for regular TX.  It cannot be for both so why do we need
> separate counters?

No strong reason, felt cleaner given xdp is under a different lock.