From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@engleder-embedded.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 0/4] igb: XDP/ZC follow up
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:06:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250219180651.0ea6f33d@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878qq22xk3.fsf@kurt.kurt.home>
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:39:08 +0100 Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> > My comment from the previous series still stands, which simply that
> > I have no idea if the maintainers will accept changes using this API
> > or prefer to wait until Stanislav's work [1] is completed to remove
> > the RTNL requirement from this API altogether.
>
> I'd rather consider patch #2 a bugfix to restore the busy polling with
> XDP/ZC. After commit 5ef44b3cb43b ("xsk: Bring back busy polling
> support") it is a requirement to implement this API.
>
> The maintainers didn't speak up on v1, so i went along and sent v2.
>
> @Jakub: What's your preference? Would you accept this series or rather
> like to wait for Stanislav's work to be finished?
No strong preference. If rtnl_lock is not causing any issues
in this driver, the we can merge as is. I haven't followed
the past discussions, tho.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@engleder-embedded.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v2 0/4] igb: XDP/ZC follow up
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:06:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250219180651.0ea6f33d@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878qq22xk3.fsf@kurt.kurt.home>
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:39:08 +0100 Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> > My comment from the previous series still stands, which simply that
> > I have no idea if the maintainers will accept changes using this API
> > or prefer to wait until Stanislav's work [1] is completed to remove
> > the RTNL requirement from this API altogether.
>
> I'd rather consider patch #2 a bugfix to restore the busy polling with
> XDP/ZC. After commit 5ef44b3cb43b ("xsk: Bring back busy polling
> support") it is a requirement to implement this API.
>
> The maintainers didn't speak up on v1, so i went along and sent v2.
>
> @Jakub: What's your preference? Would you accept this series or rather
> like to wait for Stanislav's work to be finished?
No strong preference. If rtnl_lock is not causing any issues
in this driver, the we can merge as is. I haven't followed
the past discussions, tho.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-20 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-17 11:31 [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 0/4] igb: XDP/ZC follow up Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-17 11:31 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-17 11:31 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 1/4] igb: Link IRQs to NAPI instances Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-17 11:31 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-28 9:00 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Rinitha, SX
2025-02-28 9:00 ` Rinitha, SX
2025-02-17 11:31 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 2/4] igb: Link queues " Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-17 11:31 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-18 21:13 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2025-02-18 21:13 ` Joe Damato
2025-02-19 7:41 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-19 7:41 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-19 17:55 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2025-02-19 17:55 ` Joe Damato
2025-02-20 7:43 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-20 7:43 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-28 9:00 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Rinitha, SX
2025-02-28 9:00 ` Rinitha, SX
2025-03-07 22:03 ` Tony Nguyen
2025-03-07 22:03 ` Tony Nguyen
2025-03-10 8:34 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2025-03-10 8:34 ` Joe Damato
2025-03-10 16:10 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-03-10 16:10 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-17 11:31 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 3/4] igb: Add support for persistent NAPI config Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-17 11:31 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-18 21:15 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2025-02-18 21:15 ` Joe Damato
2025-02-21 13:51 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2025-02-21 13:51 ` Loktionov, Aleksandr
2025-02-28 9:00 ` Rinitha, SX
2025-02-28 9:00 ` Rinitha, SX
2025-02-17 11:31 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 4/4] igb: Get rid of spurious interrupts Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-17 11:31 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-21 12:44 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
2025-02-21 12:44 ` Loktionov, Aleksandr
2025-03-07 10:26 ` Kumari, Sweta
2025-03-07 10:26 ` Kumari, Sweta
2025-02-18 21:18 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 0/4] igb: XDP/ZC follow up Joe Damato
2025-02-18 21:18 ` Joe Damato
2025-02-18 22:00 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2025-02-18 22:00 ` Joe Damato
2025-02-19 14:03 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-19 14:03 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-19 17:51 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2025-02-19 17:51 ` Joe Damato
2025-02-20 7:44 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-20 7:44 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-19 7:39 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-19 7:39 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-02-20 2:06 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2025-02-20 2:06 ` Jakub Kicinski
2025-02-21 20:53 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Joe Damato
2025-02-21 20:53 ` Joe Damato
2025-02-21 22:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jakub Kicinski
2025-02-21 22:26 ` Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250219180651.0ea6f33d@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gerhard@engleder-embedded.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jdamato@fastly.com \
--cc=kurt@linutronix.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.