Hi Diogo,
On 2/18/2025 5:54 PM, Diogo Ivo wrote:
Hi Meghana, On 2/18/25 10: 10 AM, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > On 2/12/2025
7: 26 PM, Roger Quadros wrote: >> Can we get rid of SKB entirely from
the management channel code? >> The packet received on this channel is
never passed to
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source
of this email and know the content is safe.
Report Suspicious
<https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK!
uvdgfB3F_Ow7QIXEnBKj3ybYT8I9yL0CM5RLkel44YW99zMeqk_TnCBkOwR0q45N5dLjtBz49EalJyUJ1-U1lPk6DIBve_3-$>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Meghana,
On 2/18/25 10:10 AM, Malladi, Meghana wrote:
On 2/12/2025 7:26 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
Can we get rid of SKB entirely from the management channel code?
The packet received on this channel is never passed to user space so
I don't see why SKB is required.
Yes I do agree with you on the fact the SKB here is not passed to the
network stack, hence this is redundant. But honestly I am not sure how
that can be done, because the callers of this function access skb->data
from the skb which is returned and the same can't be done with page (how
to pass the same data using page?)
Also as you are aware we are not currently supporting SR1 devices
anymore, hence I don't have any SR1 devices handy to test these changes
and ensure nothing is broken if I remove SKB entirely.
I have some SR1 devices available and would be happy to test these
proposed changes in case they are feasible.
That's awesome. Once the changes have been aligned with Roger, I will
share the changes with you for testing before posting v3. Thanks for
your support.
Best regards,
Diogo
