[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       intel-wired-lan
Subject:    Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC net-next 00/34] Christmas 3-serie XDP for idpf (+generic stuff)
From:       Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel () gmail ! com>
Date:       2023-12-26 20:23:41
Message-ID: 658b364d56c6e_5c2a929468 () willemb ! c ! googlers ! com ! notmuch
[Download RAW message or body]

Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> I was highly asked to send this WIP before the holidays to trigger
> some discussions at least for the generic parts.
> 
> This all depends on libie[0] and WB-on-ITR fix[1]. The RFC does not
> guarantee to work perfectly, but at least regular XDP seems to work
> for me...
> 
> In fact, here are 3 separate series:
> * 01-08: convert idpf to libie and make it more sane;
> * 09-25: add XDP to idpf;
> * 26-34: add XSk to idpf.
> 
> Most people may want to be interested only in the following generic
> changes:
> * 11: allow attaching already registered memory models to XDP RxQ info;
> * 12-13: generic helpers for adding a frag to &xdp_buff and converting
>   it to an skb;
> * 14: get rid of xdp_frame::mem.id, allow mixing pages from different
>   page_pools within one &xdp_buff/&xdp_frame;
> * 15: some Page Pool helper;
> * 18: it's for libie, but I wanted to talk about XDP_TX bulking;
> * 26: same as 13, but for converting XSK &xdp_buff to skb.
> 
> The rest is up to you, driver-specific stuff is pretty boring sometimes.
> 
> I'll be polishing and finishing this all starting January 3rd and then
> preparing and sending sane series, some early feedback never hurts tho.
> 
> Merry Yule!
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231213112835.2262651-1-aleksander.lobakin@intel.com
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231215193721.425087-1-michal.kubiak@intel.com

This is great. Thanks for sharing the entire series.

Which SHA1 should we apply this to? I'm having a hard time applying
cleanly.

The libie v7 series applied cleanly on bc044ae9d64b. Which I chose
only based on the follow-on page pool patch.

But that base commit causes too many conflicts when applying this.
Patch 6 had a trivial one in idpf_rx_singleq_clean (`skb = rx_q->skb`).
But patch 14 has so many conflicts in page_pool.c, that I'm clearly
on the wrong track trying to fix up manually.



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]