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: <CAL+tcoBj7ot1_aWOwet+cK=mj0+G9MahfRM4=U4w-7ycEiD=rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 17:09:52 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
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 v3 7/9] xsk: support batch xmit main logic

On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 9:32 PM Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 09:12:07PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> >
> > This function __xsk_generic_xmit_batch() is the core function in batches
> > xmit, implement a batch version of __xsk_generic_xmit().
> >
> > The whole logic is divided into sections:
> > 1. check if we have enough available slots in tx ring and completion
> >    ring.
> > 2. read descriptors from tx ring into pool->tx_descs in batches
> > 3. reserve enough slots in completion ring to avoid backpressure
> > 4. allocate and build skbs in batches
> > 5. send all the possible packets in batches at one time
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> __xsk_generic_xmit_batch is defined in this patch, but not used
> until the next one. Which results in a transient warning when
> building with W=1.
>
> Perhaps it's just as well to squash this patch into the following patch?

Sure, I will do it as long as reviewers will not complain that patch
is too long :P

Thanks,
Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ