From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:24:16 +0100
> On 1/7/25 4:29 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> @@ -623,21 +622,21 @@ static gro_result_t napi_skb_finish(struct napi_struct *napi,
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> -gro_result_t napi_gro_receive(struct napi_struct *napi, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> +gro_result_t gro_receive_skb(struct gro_node *gro, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> gro_result_t ret;
>>
>> - skb_mark_napi_id(skb, napi);
>> + __skb_mark_napi_id(skb, gro->napi_id);
>
> Is this the only place where gro->napi_id is needed? If so, what about
> moving skb_mark_napi_id() in napi_gro_receive() and remove such field?
Yes, only here. I thought of this, too. But this will increase the
object code of each napi_gro_receive() caller as it's now inline. So I
stopped on this one.
What do you think?
>
> /P
Thanks,
Olek
