On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 02:12:46PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 3:11 AM Joe Damato <jdamato@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Slight refactor to prepare the code for NAPI to queue mapping. No
> > functional changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Damato <jdamato@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Lei Yang <leiyang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Previously patch 1 in the v1.
> > - Added Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags to commit message. No
> > functional changes.
> >
> > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > index 7646ddd9bef7..cff18c66b54a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > @@ -2789,7 +2789,8 @@ static void skb_recv_done(struct virtqueue *rvq)
> > virtqueue_napi_schedule(&rq->napi, rvq);
> > }
> >
> > -static void virtnet_napi_enable(struct virtqueue *vq, struct napi_struct *napi)
> > +static void virtnet_napi_do_enable(struct virtqueue *vq,
> > + struct napi_struct *napi)
> > {
> > napi_enable(napi);
>
> Nit: it might be better to not have this helper to avoid a misuse of
> this function directly.
Sorry, I'm probably missing something here.
Both virtnet_napi_enable and virtnet_napi_tx_enable need the logic
in virtnet_napi_do_enable.
Are you suggesting that I remove virtnet_napi_do_enable and repeat
the block of code in there twice (in virtnet_napi_enable and
virtnet_napi_tx_enable)?
Just seemed like a lot of code to repeat twice and a helper would be
cleaner?
Let me know; since net-next is closed there is a plenty of time to
get this to where you'd like it to be before new code is accepted.
> Other than this.
>
> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
