Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: lan966x: Add basic XDP support

[Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>]

The 11/07/2022 17:13, Alexander Lobakin wrote:

Hi Olek,

> 
> From: Alexander Lobakin <alexander.lobakin@intel.com>
> 
> From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 22:11:53 +0100
> 
> > Introduce basic XDP support to lan966x driver. Currently the driver
> > supports only the actions XDP_PASS, XDP_DROP and XDP_ABORTED.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
> > ---
> >  .../net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/Makefile   |  3 +-
> >  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_fdma.c | 11 ++-
> >  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c |  5 ++
> >  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h | 13 +++
> >  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c  | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  5 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +bool lan966x_xdp_port_present(struct lan966x_port *port)
> > +{
> > +     return !!port->xdp_prog;
> > +}
> 
> Why uninline such a simple check? I realize you want to keep all XDP
> stuff inside in the separate file, but doesn't this one looks too
> much?

I was kind of hoping that the compiler will inline it for me.
But I can add it in the header file to inline it.

> 
> > +
> > +int lan966x_xdp_port_init(struct lan966x_port *port)
> > +{
> > +     struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x;
> > +
> > +     return xdp_rxq_info_reg(&port->xdp_rxq, port->dev, 0,
> > +                             lan966x->napi.napi_id);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void lan966x_xdp_port_deinit(struct lan966x_port *port)
> > +{
> > +     if (xdp_rxq_info_is_reg(&port->xdp_rxq))
> > +             xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&port->xdp_rxq);
> > +}
> > --
> > 2.38.0
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek

-- 
/Horatiu