On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 16:30, Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > - pool->unaligned = unaligned; > > > pool->frame_len = umem->chunk_size - umem->headroom - > > > XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM; > > > + pool->unaligned = unaligned; > > > > nit: This change is not necessary. > > Do you mind if we keep it? It makes the assignments better match the > order in the struct declaration. Do not mind. > > > -static void xp_check_dma_contiguity(struct xsk_dma_map *dma_map) > > > +static void xp_check_dma_contiguity(struct xsk_dma_map *dma_map, u32 page_size) > > > { > > > u32 i; > > > > > > - for (i = 0; i < dma_map->dma_pages_cnt - 1; i++) { > > > - if (dma_map->dma_pages[i] + PAGE_SIZE == dma_map->dma_pages[i + 1]) > > > + for (i = 0; i + 1 < dma_map->dma_pages_cnt; i++) { > > > > I think the previous version is clearer than this new one. > > I like using `i + 1` since it matches the subscript usage. I'm used to > writing it like this for SIMD code where subtraction may wrap if the > length is unsigned, that doesn't matter in this case though. I can > restore the old way if you want. Please restore it in that case. I am not used to SIMD code :-).