[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250930104129.20a2aa7e@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:41:29 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Octavian Purdila <tavip@...gle.com>
Cc: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
sdf@...ichev.me, ahmed.zaki@...el.com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
toke@...hat.com, lorenzo@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, syzbot+ff145014d6b0ce64a173@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] xdp: use multi-buff only if receive queue supports
page pool
On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 17:01:49 -0700 Octavian Purdila wrote:
> local_lock_nested_bh(&system_page_pool.bh_lock);
> - err = skb_cow_data_for_xdp(this_cpu_read(system_page_pool.pool), pskb, prog);
> + pool = this_cpu_read(system_page_pool.pool);
> + err = skb_cow_data_for_xdp(pool, pskb, prog);
> + rxq->mem.type = MEM_TYPE_PAGE_POOL;
> + rxq->mem.id = pool->xdp_mem_id;
> local_unlock_nested_bh(&system_page_pool.bh_lock);
Yes, LGTM. I _think_ that only skb_cow_data_for_xdp() has to be under
the lock here, but doesn't really matter.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists