On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 3:10 PM Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 17:36:01 +0100 > > > Several months ago, I had been looking through my old XDP hints tree[0] > > to check whether some patches not directly related to hints can be sent > > standalone. Roughly at the same time, Daniel appeared and asked[1] about > > GRO for cpumap from that tree. > > I see "Changes requested" on Patchwork. Which ones? > > 1/8 regarding gro_node? Nobody proposed a solution which would be as > efficient, but avoid using struct_group(), I don't see such as well. > I explain in the commitmsgs and cover letter everything. Jakub gave me > Acked-by on struct_group() in the v3 thread. One of the points of your nice series is to dissociate GRO from NAPI, so defining gro_node inside napi_struct is not appealing. I suggested not putting napi_id in the new structure. If you need to cache a copy in it for "performance/whatever reason", you can cache napi_id, because napi->napi_id is only set once in __napi_hash_add_with_id() gro->napi_id_cache = napi->napi_id;
