Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:52:30 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To:     Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
        grygorii.strashko@ti.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: core: page_pool: add user refcnt and reintroduce
 page_pool_destroy
Message-ID: <20190702165230.6caa36e3@carbon>
In-Reply-To: <20190702144426.GD4510@khorivan>
References: <20190702153902.0e42b0b2@carbon>
        <156207778364.29180.5111562317930943530.stgit@firesoul>
        <20190702144426.GD4510@khorivan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:44:27 +0300
Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
> >
> >Jesper recently removed page_pool_destroy() (from driver invocation) and
> >moved shutdown and free of page_pool into xdp_rxq_info_unreg(), in-order to
> >handle in-flight packets/pages. This created an asymmetry in drivers
> >create/destroy pairs.
> >
> >This patch add page_pool user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy.
> >This serves two purposes, (1) simplify drivers error handling as driver now
> >drivers always calls page_pool_destroy() and don't need to track if
> >xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() was unsuccessful. (2) allow special cases
> >where a single RX-queue (with a single page_pool) provides packets for two
> >net_device'es, and thus needs to register the same page_pool twice with two
> >xdp_rxq_info structures.  
> 
> As I tend to use xdp level patch there is no more reason to mention (2) case
> here. XDP patch serves it better and can prevent not only obj deletion but also
> pool flush, so, this one patch I could better leave only for (1) case.
 
I don't understand what you are saying.

Do you approve this patch, or do you reject this patch?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer