Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:49:48 +0000
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
From:   Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Reply-To: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] gro: add combined call_gro_receive() + INDIRECT_CALL_INET() helper
Message-ID: <20210319124940.111546-1-alobakin@pm.me>
In-Reply-To: <5c1fce37033e98e483728ea9879c3cf4ae83aa28.camel@redhat.com>
References: <20210318184157.700604-1-alobakin@pm.me> <20210318184157.700604-3-alobakin@pm.me> <1ebd301832ff86cc414dd17eee0b3dfc91ff3c08.camel@redhat.com> <20210319111315.3069-1-alobakin@pm.me> <20210319114300.108808-1-alobakin@pm.me> <5c1fce37033e98e483728ea9879c3cf4ae83aa28.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:35:41 +0100

> On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 11:43 +0000, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > I'm not sure if you did it on purpose in commit aaa5d90b395a7
> > ("net: use indirect call wrappers at GRO network layer").
> > Was that intentional
>
> I must admit that 2y+ later my own intentions are not so clear to me
> too;)

Heh, know that feel (=3D

> > for the sake of more optimized path for the
> > kernels with moduled IPv6,
>
> Uhm... no I guess that was more an underlook on my side.
>
> > or I can replace INDIRECT_CALL_INET()
> > with INDIRECT_CALL_2() here too?
>
> If that build with IPV6=3Dnmy, I would say yes.

I think you used INDIRECT_CALL_INET() to protect from CONFIG_INET=3Dn.
But this also hurts with retpoline when CONFIG_IPV6=3Dm. Not so common
case, but still.

Plain INDIRECT_CALL_2() won't build without CONFIG_INET, so we either
introduce a new one (e.g. _INET_2() similarly to _INET_1()), or leave
it as it is for now (Dave's already picked this series to net-next).

> > I want to keep GRO callbacks that
> > make use of indirect call wrappers unified.
>
> L4 will still need some special handling as ipv6 udp gro callbacks are
> not builtin with CONFIG_IPV6=3Dm :(

Yep, I remember. I meant {inet,ipv6}_gro_{complete,receive}()
callers, but didn't mention that for some reason.

> Cheers,
>
> Paolo

Thanks,
Al