On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:21:13 +0300 Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > >On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:56:13 +0300 > >Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:52:30PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > >> >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? > >> > > >> It's not reject, it's proposition to use both, XDP and page pool patches, > >> each having its goal. > > > >Just to be clear, if you want this patch to get accepted you have to > >reply with your Signed-off-by (as I wrote). > > > >Maybe we should discuss it in another thread, about why you want two > >solutions to the same problem. > > If it solves same problem I propose to reject this one and use this: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/2/651 No, I propose using this one, and rejecting the other one. -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
