On Wed Dec 10 2025, Behera, VIVEK wrote:
> On Wed Dec 10 2025, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
>> On Wed Dec 10 2025, Behera, VIVEK wrote:
>>> Changes in v5:
>>> - Updated comment style from multi-star to standard /* */ as suggested by  
>>> Aleksandr.
>>>
>>> From ab2583ff8a17405d3aa6caf4df1c4fdfb21f5e98 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Vivek Behera <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2025 10:26:05 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH v5] [iwl-net] igc: Fix trigger of incorrect irq in
>>> igc_xsk_wakeup function
>>>
>>> This patch addresses the issue where the igc_xsk_wakeup function was
>>> triggering an incorrect IRQ for tx-0 when the i226 is configured with
>>> only 2 combined queues or in an environment with 2 active CPU cores.
>>> This prevented XDP Zero-copy send functionality in such split IRQ
>>> configurations.
>>>
>>> The fix implements the correct logic for extracting q_vectors saved
>>> during rx and tx ring allocation and utilizes flags provided by the
>>> ndo_xsk_wakeup API to trigger the appropriate IRQ.
>>>
>>> Changed comment blocks to align with standard Linux comments
>>>
>>> Fixes: fc9df2a0b520d7d439ecf464794d53e91be74b93 ("igc: Enable RX via
>>> AF_XDP zero-copy")
>>> Fixes: 15fd021bc4270273d8f4b7f58fdda8a16214a377 ("igc: Add Tx hardware
>>> timestamp request for AF_XDP zero-copy packet")
>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Behera <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Aleksandr loktinov <[email protected]>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks for this fix. Does the same issue also exist for i210 in the igb 
>> driver? The igb driver also has this split IRQ configuration with 2 queues. 
>> Might be good to fix this one as well :).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kurt
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> The issue so far has not popped up in i210 igb driver for XDP ZC send
> but will impact the xsk_wakeup attempting to wakeup the RX irqs or
> both Rx and Tx (for.e.g in xsk_poll) if IRQ configuration is with 2
> queues. Essentially same logic submitted in the patch is needed for
> igb. I am preparing a patch for the igb aswell.  However, I would wait
> for submission until I manage to resolve the formatting and other
> guideline related issue pointed out by Jakub in the igc patch.

Sounds great. Thanks!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to