netdev - Re: [RFC v1 15/22] eth: bnxt: store the rx buf size per queue

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250801162010.1f5b3fba@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 16:20:10 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 io-uring@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Willem de
 Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
 sdf@...ichev.me, dw@...idwei.uk, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
 dtatulea@...dia.com, ap420073@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 15/22] eth: bnxt: store the rx buf size per queue

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:33:55 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote:
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> >
> > In normal operation only a subset of queues is configured for
> > zero-copy. Since zero-copy is the main use for larger buffer
> > sizes we need to configure the sizes per queue.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>  
> 
> I wonder if this is necessary for some reason, or is it better to
> expect the driver to refer to the netdev->qcfgs directly?
> 
> By my count the configs can now live in 4 places: the core netdev
> config, the core per-queue config, the driver netdev config, and the
> driver per-queue config.
> 
> I honestly I'm not sure about duplicating settings between the netdev
> configs and the per-queue configs in the first place (seems like
> configs should be either driver wide or per-queue to me, and not
> both), and I'm less sure about again duplicating the settings between
> core structs and in-driver structs. Seems like the same information
> duplicated in many places and a nightmare to keep it all in sync.

Does patch 20 answer this question?