On 2023/6/15 0:56, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:04:39 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>> Seems like the semantics of page_pool_alloc() are always better than >>> page_pool_alloc_frag(). Is there a reason to keep these two separate? >> >> I am agree the semantics of page_pool_alloc() is better, I was thinking >> about combining those two too. >> The reason I am keeping it is about the nic hw with fixed buffer size for >> each desc, and that buffer size is always smaller than or equal to half >> of the page allocated from page pool, so it doesn't bother doing the >> checking of 'size << 1 > max_size' and doesn't care about the actual >> truesize. > > I see. Let's reorg the documentation, then? Something along the lines > of, maybe: There is still one thing I am not sure about page_pool_alloc() API: It use *size both as input and output, I am not sure if it is a general pratice or not, or is there other better pratice than this.
