netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: xsk: update tx queue consumer immdiately after transmission

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: <CAL+tcoCNhr0FoWk+aCXf-F1yUXXSVvb-Op77TLgvcHO6t0mztA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:29:07 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, bjorn@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, 
	maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, jonathan.lemon@...il.com, sdf@...ichev.me, 
	ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, 
	john.fastabend@...il.com, joe@...a.to, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: xsk: update tx queue consumer immdiately
 after transmission

> Allow me to ask the question that you asked me before: even though I
> didn't see the necessity to set the max budget for zc mode (just
> because I didn't spot it happening), would it be better if we separate
> both of them because it's an uAPI interface. IIUC, if the setsockopt
> is set, we will not separate it any more in the future?
>
> Or we can keep using the hardcoded value (32) in the zc mode like
> before and __only__ touch the copy mode? Then if someone or I found
> the significance of making it tunable, then another parameter of
> setsockopt can be added? Does it make sense?

I found I replied to a wrong thread. Let me copy&paste there instead.

Thanks,
Jason