On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:07 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/25/20 10:13 AM, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:02 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 11/25/20 9:30 AM, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:58 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 11/24/20 9:12 AM, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:33 AM Li RongQing <lirongqing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Add a new function for returning descriptors the user received
> >>>>>> after an xsk_ring_cons__peek call. After the application has
> >>>>>> gotten a number of descriptors from a ring, it might not be able
> >>>>>> to or want to process them all for various reasons. Therefore,
> >>>>>> it would be useful to have an interface for returning or
> >>>>>> cancelling a number of them so that they are returned to the ring.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This patch adds a new function called xsk_ring_cons__cancel that
> >>>>>> performs this operation on nb descriptors counted from the end of
> >>>>>> the batch of descriptors that was received through the peek call.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> [ Magnus Karlsson: rewrote changelog ]
> >>>>>> Cc: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> diff with v1: fix the building, and rewrote changelog
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h | 6 ++++++
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >>>>>> index 1069c46364ff..1719a327e5f9 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h
> >>>>>> @@ -153,6 +153,12 @@ static inline size_t xsk_ring_cons__peek(struct xsk_ring_cons *cons,
> >>>>>> return entries;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +static inline void xsk_ring_cons__cancel(struct xsk_ring_cons *cons,
> >>>>>> + size_t nb)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + cons->cached_cons -= nb;
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> static inline void xsk_ring_cons__release(struct xsk_ring_cons *cons, size_t nb)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> /* Make sure data has been read before indicating we are done
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 2.17.3
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you RongQing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Acked-by: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> @Magnus: shouldn't the xsk_ring_cons__cancel() nb type be '__u32 nb' instead?
> >>>
> >>> All the other interfaces have size_t as the type for "nb". It is kind
> >>> of weird as a __u32 would have made more sense, but cannot actually
> >>> remember why I chose a size_t two years ago. But for consistency with
> >>> the other interfaces, let us keep it a size_t for now. I will do some
> >>> research around the reason.
> >>
> >> It's actually a bit of a mix currently which is what got me confused:
> >>
> >> static inline __u32 xsk_prod_nb_free(struct xsk_ring_prod *r, __u32 nb)
> >> static inline __u32 xsk_cons_nb_avail(struct xsk_ring_cons *r, __u32 nb)
> >> static inline size_t xsk_ring_prod__reserve(struct xsk_ring_prod *prod, size_t nb, __u32 *idx)
> >> static inline void xsk_ring_prod__submit(struct xsk_ring_prod *prod, size_t nb)
> >> static inline size_t xsk_ring_cons__peek(struct xsk_ring_cons *cons, size_t nb, __u32 *idx)
> >> static inline void xsk_ring_cons__release(struct xsk_ring_cons *cons, size_t nb)
> >>
> >> (I can take it in as-is, but would be nice to clean it up a bit to avoid confusion.)
> >
> > Hmm, that is confusing indeed. Well, the best choice would be __u32
> > everywhere since the ring pointers themselves are __u32. But I am
> > somewhat afraid of changing an API. Can we guarantee that a change
> > from size_t to __u32 will not break some user's compilation? Another
> > option would be to clean this up next year when we will very likely
> > produce a 1.0 version of this API and at that point we can change some
> > things. What do you think would be the best approach?
>
> Given they're all inlines, imho, risk should be fairly low to switch all to __u32.
> I would probably go and verify first with DPDK as main user of the lib and/or write
> some test cases to see if compiler spills any new warnings and the like, but if not
> the case then we should do it for bpf-next so this has plenty of exposure in the
> meantime. Any nb large than u32 max is a bug in any case.
Sounds good. Will do and get back to you.
> Thanks,
> Daniel
