> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:06:39 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > Not sure I get what the issue is with this either? But having a test > > > that can be run to validate this on hardware would be great in any case, > > > I suppose - we've been discussing more general "compliance tests" for > > > XDP before... > > > > what about option 2? We can add a frag_size field to rxq [0] that is set by > > the driver initializing the xdp_buff. frag_size set to 0 means we can use > > all the buffer. > > So 0 would mean xdp->frame_sz can be used for extending frags? > > I was expecting that we'd used rxq->frag_size in place of xdp->frame_sz. > > For devices doing payload packing we will not be able to extend the > last frag at all. Wouldn't it be better to keep 0 for the case where > extending is not allowed? ack, I am fine with it. I will integrate it in v18. Thanks. Regards, Lorenzo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
