From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v2 1/2] e1000: add initial XDP support
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:30:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57E20CEC.4040600@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=hENf9UZppBSx11Pdg8A9U2tmNLYOXeY5tpzyYiBF4dOcGLg@mail.gmail.com>
On 16-09-20 09:26 PM, zhuyj wrote:
> +static int e1000_xdp_set(struct net_device *netdev, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> +{
> + struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
> + struct bpf_prog *old_prog;
> +
> + old_prog = xchg(&adapter->prog, prog);
> + if (old_prog) {
> + synchronize_net();
> + bpf_prog_put(old_prog);
> + }
> +
> + if (netif_running(netdev))
> + e1000_reinit_locked(adapter);
> + else
> + e1000_reset(adapter);
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> To this function, is it better to use "static void
> e1000_xdp_set(struct net_device *netdev, struct bpf_prog *prog)"?
> since it is always to return 0.
>
In general try to avoid top posting.
Yes making it void would be reasonable and probably a good idea. I'll
do it in v3.
[...]
Thanks,
John
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
Cc: bblanco@plumgrid.com, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
brouer@redhat.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
u9012063@gmail.com, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 1/2] e1000: add initial XDP support
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:30:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57E20CEC.4040600@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=hENf9UZppBSx11Pdg8A9U2tmNLYOXeY5tpzyYiBF4dOcGLg@mail.gmail.com>
On 16-09-20 09:26 PM, zhuyj wrote:
> +static int e1000_xdp_set(struct net_device *netdev, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> +{
> + struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
> + struct bpf_prog *old_prog;
> +
> + old_prog = xchg(&adapter->prog, prog);
> + if (old_prog) {
> + synchronize_net();
> + bpf_prog_put(old_prog);
> + }
> +
> + if (netif_running(netdev))
> + e1000_reinit_locked(adapter);
> + else
> + e1000_reset(adapter);
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> To this function, is it better to use "static void
> e1000_xdp_set(struct net_device *netdev, struct bpf_prog *prog)"?
> since it is always to return 0.
>
In general try to avoid top posting.
Yes making it void would be reasonable and probably a good idea. I'll
do it in v3.
[...]
Thanks,
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-21 4:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-09 21:29 [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v2 1/2] e1000: add initial XDP support John Fastabend
2016-09-09 21:29 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-09 21:29 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v2 2/2] e1000: bundle xdp xmit routines John Fastabend
2016-09-09 21:29 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-09 23:37 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-09 23:37 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-09 23:44 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tom Herbert
2016-09-09 23:44 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 0:01 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-10 0:01 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-10 1:04 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 1:04 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 1:12 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-10 1:12 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-10 1:19 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 1:19 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 1:40 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-10 1:40 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-10 3:12 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 3:12 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 3:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-10 3:26 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-10 4:13 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 4:13 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-12 3:15 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-12 3:15 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-12 4:12 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-12 4:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-10 3:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-10 3:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-09-12 11:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-09-12 11:56 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-09-10 15:36 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Tom Herbert
2016-09-10 15:36 ` Tom Herbert
2016-09-12 3:07 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-12 3:07 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-12 12:17 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-09-12 12:17 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2016-09-12 18:11 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-12 18:11 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-09 22:04 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [net-next PATCH v2 1/2] e1000: add initial XDP support Eric Dumazet
2016-09-09 22:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-09-09 23:33 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " John Fastabend
2016-09-09 23:33 ` John Fastabend
2016-09-21 4:26 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " zhuyj
2016-09-21 4:26 ` zhuyj
2016-09-21 4:30 ` John Fastabend [this message]
2016-09-21 4:30 ` John Fastabend
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=57E20CEC.4040600@gmail.com \
--to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org \
/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.