On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:44:27 +0300 Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > >From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Jesper recently removed page_pool_destroy() (from driver invocation) and > >moved shutdown and free of page_pool into xdp_rxq_info_unreg(), in-order to > >handle in-flight packets/pages. This created an asymmetry in drivers > >create/destroy pairs. > > > >This patch add page_pool user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy. > >This serves two purposes, (1) simplify drivers error handling as driver now > >drivers always calls page_pool_destroy() and don't need to track if > >xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() was unsuccessful. (2) allow special cases > >where a single RX-queue (with a single page_pool) provides packets for two > >net_device'es, and thus needs to register the same page_pool twice with two > >xdp_rxq_info structures. > > As I tend to use xdp level patch there is no more reason to mention (2) case > here. XDP patch serves it better and can prevent not only obj deletion but also > pool flush, so, this one patch I could better leave only for (1) case. I don't understand what you are saying. Do you approve this patch, or do you reject this patch? -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
