On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:56:13 +0300 Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:52:30PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > >On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:44:27 +0300 > >Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > >> >From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronz...@linaro.org> > >> > > >> >Jesper recently removed page_pool_destroy() (from driver invocation) and > >> >moved shutdown and free of page_pool into xdp_rxq_info_unreg(), in-order > >> >to > >> >handle in-flight packets/pages. This created an asymmetry in drivers > >> >create/destroy pairs. > >> > > >> >This patch add page_pool user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy. > >> >This serves two purposes, (1) simplify drivers error handling as driver > >> >now > >> >drivers always calls page_pool_destroy() and don't need to track if > >> >xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() was unsuccessful. (2) allow special cases > >> >where a single RX-queue (with a single page_pool) provides packets for two > >> >net_device'es, and thus needs to register the same page_pool twice with > >> >two > >> >xdp_rxq_info structures. > >> > >> As I tend to use xdp level patch there is no more reason to mention (2) > >> case > >> here. XDP patch serves it better and can prevent not only obj deletion but > >> also > >> pool flush, so, this one patch I could better leave only for (1) case. > > > >I don't understand what you are saying. > > > >Do you approve this patch, or do you reject this patch? > > > It's not reject, it's proposition to use both, XDP and page pool patches, > each having its goal. Just to be clear, if you want this patch to get accepted you have to reply with your Signed-off-by (as I wrote). Maybe we should discuss it in another thread, about why you want two solutions to the same problem. -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
