From: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:41:04 +0000 > From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sep/25/2019, 12:33:53 (UTC+00:00) > >> From: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 10:44:53 +0000 >> >> > From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Sep/24/2019, 20:45:08 (UTC+00:00) >> > >> >> From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 19:00:34 +0200 >> >> >> >> Also, you're now writing to the high 32-bits unconditionally, even when >> >> it will always be zero because of 32-bit addressing. That looks like >> >> a step backwards to me. >> > >> > Don't agree. As per previous discussions and as per my IP knowledge, if >> > EAME is not enabled / not supported the register can still be written. >> > This is not fast path and will not impact any remaining operation. Can >> > you please explain what exactly is the concern about this ? >> > >> > Anyway, this is an important feature for performance so I hope Thierry >> > re-submits this once -next opens and addressing the review comments. >> >> Perhaps I misunderstand the context, isn't this code writing the >> descriptors for every packet? > > No, its just setting up the base address for the descriptors which is > done in open(). The one that's in the fast path is the tail address, > which is always the lower 32 bits. Aha, ok, yes then initializing both parts unconditionally is fine.
