From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:31:22 +0100 > 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; This was rejected by Kuba in v2. He didn't like to have napi_id two times within napi_struct (one inside gro_node, one outside). Thanks, Olek
