On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 21:36:05 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-02-04 20:17:15 [-0800], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:12:58 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > +int __netif_rx(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + trace_netif_rx_entry(skb);
> > > + ret = netif_rx_internal(skb);
> > > + trace_netif_rx_exit(ret);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> >
> > Any reason this is not exported? I don't think there's anything wrong
> > with drivers calling this function, especially SW drivers which already
> > know to be in BH. I'd vote for roughly all of $(ls drivers/net/*.c) to
> > get the same treatment as loopback.
>
> Don't we end up in the same situation as netif_rx() vs netix_rx_ni()?
Sort of. TBH my understanding of the motivation is a bit vague.
IIUC you want to reduce the API duplication so drivers know what to
do[1]. I believe the quote from Eric you put in the commit message
pertains to HW devices, where using netif_rx() is quite anachronistic.
But software devices like loopback, veth or tunnels may want to go via
backlog for good reasons. Would it make it better if we called
netif_rx() netif_rx_backlog() instead? Or am I missing the point?
