> -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 12:44 AM > To: Zhang, Qi Z <[email protected]>; Feifei Wang <[email protected]>; > Xing, Beilei <[email protected]>; David Christensen > <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; > Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>; Ruifeng Wang > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <[email protected]>; Thomas Monjalon > <[email protected]>; David Marchand <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] net/i40e: remove redundant number of packets check > > On 3/3/2022 2:28 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Feifei Wang <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:54 AM > >> To: Xing, Beilei <[email protected]>; David Christensen > >> <[email protected]>; Richardson, Bruce > >> <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin > >> <[email protected]>; Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Feifei Wang <[email protected]>; > >> Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [PATCH v1] net/i40e: remove redundant number of packets > >> check > >> > >> For i40e_xmit_pkts_vec_xx function, it checks nb_pkts to ensure > >> nb_pkts does not cross rs_thresh. > >> > >> However, in i40e_xmit_fixed_burst_vec_xx function, this check will be > >> performed again. To improve code, delete this redundant check. > >> > >> Suggested-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Feifei Wang <[email protected]> > >> Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <[email protected]> > > > > Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel. > > > > Hi Qi, > > This patch is not acked by the i40e maintainers. > > And this is changing the datapath for the -rc3, two weeks before the release. > Is > it tested enough? > > What is the gain with this patch, I don't see any numbers in the commit log. > If the gain is small, can we postpone this patch to next release instead of > getting > it for -rc3?
The patch applied the same thing as below which I have reviewed. https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/[email protected]/ I didn't see the risk of having it, and I will add a "reviewed-by" to avoid confusion, but if you think it's risky, we can still defer it to next-net. Thanks Qi

